(PC) Purdy v. Fox et al, No. 2:2017cv02518 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER adopting in full 17 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/18/18. Defendant Fox is DISMISSED. All claims against defendants Rhinehart and Scott other than (1) a claim for denial of free exercise of religi on, guaranteed under the First Amendment, against defendants Rhinehart and Scott as detailed in claim 1 of Plaintiff's amended complaint, and (2) a claim for retaliation for exercise of Plaintiff's First Amendment rights against defendant Scott as detailed in claim 2 of Plaintiff's amended complaint, be dismissed. (Kastilahn, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Purdy v. Fox et al Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIHAD AL-HAKIM PURDY, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-2518-TLN-CKD Plaintiff, v. ORDER ROBERT W. FOX, 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 October 25, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff has 23 not filed 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 reviewed 27 the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 28 the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 25, 2018 (ECF No. 17), are adopted 3 in full; 4 2. Defendant Fox is dismissed; and 5 3. All claims against defendants Rhinehart and Scott other than (1) a claim for denial of 6 free exercise of religion, guaranteed under the First Amendment, against defendants Rhinehart 7 and Scott as detailed in claim 1 of Plaintiff’s amended complaint, and (2) a claim for retaliation 8 for exercise of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights against defendant Scott as detailed in claim 2 of 9 Plaintiff’s amended complaint, be dismissed. 10 11 Dated: December 18, 2018 12 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.
