(PC) Giraldes v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al., No. 2:2016cv02139 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/27/2018 ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations in full, DISMISSING Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim, and DISMISSING Defendants Scott Kernan and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from this action. (York, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Giraldes v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al. Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 LARRY GIRALDES, JR., 13 14 15 16 17 No. 2:16-cv-2139 KJM DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 20 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 21 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On February 9, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 23 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 24 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff has not filed 25 objections to the findings and recommendations. 26 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 27 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 28 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 2 the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 9, 2018 (ECF No. 12), are adopted 5 in full; 6 2. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim is dismissed; and 7 3. Defendants Kernan and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation are 8 dismissed from this action. 9 DATED: March 27, 2018. 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
