(PC) Brownlee v. Jones et al, No. 2:2017cv00872 - Document 45 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/12/19 ADOPTING 37 Findings and Recommendations in full. This case is PROCEEDING only on the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against defendants Jackson, Thompson, James, Smi th, Goings, Grinder, Gomez, and Schmenk. The remaining claims against defendants Jones, Hernandez, Gayman, Rosales, Smolich, Anderson, Douglas, Rose, Peoples, Fry, Blyst, Yee and Hayz, and the verbal harassment claim against defendant James are DISMISSED for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Coll, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Brownlee v. Jones et al Doc. 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENJAMIN JUSTIN BROWNLEE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:17-cv-00872 KJM CKD P v. ORDER SCOTT JONES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 17, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 21 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to 23 the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 2 the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 17, 2018, are adopted in full. 5 2. This case is proceeding only on the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims 6 against defendants Jackson, Thompson, James, Smith, Goings, Grinder, Gomez, and Schmenk. 7 3. The remaining claims against defendants Jones, Hernandez, Gayman, Rosales, 8 Smolich, Anderson, Douglas, Rose, Peoples, Fry, Blyst, Yee and Hayz, and the verbal harassment 9 claim against defendant James are dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be 10 11 granted. 4. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 12 proceedings. 13 DATED: February 12, 2019. 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
