(PC) Candler v. Stewart et al, No. 2:2017cv02436 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/7/2018 ADOPTING in FULL 13 Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff may proceed on the following claims: (a) Claims against Defendant Lebeck for excessive force and denial of medical care arising un der the Eighth Amendment and a claim arising under the First Amendment for retaliating against Plaintiff for utilization of an inmate grievance procedure; and (b) Claim against Defendant Huynh for denial of medical care arising under the Eighth Amendment. All other claims and Defendants are DISMISSED. (Washington, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Candler v. Stewart et al Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEITH CANDLER, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-02436 TLN CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER J. STEWART, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 25, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein, which 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. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff has not filed 23 objections to 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having 27 reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 28 and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 25, 2018 (ECF No. 13), are adopted in 3 4 5 full. 2. Plaintiff may proceed on the following claims: (a) Claims against Defendant Lebeck for excessive force and denial of medical 6 care arising under the Eighth Amendment and a claim arising under the First Amendment 7 for retaliating against Plaintiff for utilization of an inmate grievance procedure; and 8 (b) Claim against Defendant Huynh for denial of medical care arising under the 9 Eighth Amendment. 10 3. All other claims and Defendants are dismissed. 11 12 Dated: August 7, 2018 13 14 15 Troy L. Nunley 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.
