(PC)Hill v. Rios et al, No. 2:2018cv03224 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/14/2020 ADOPTING in full the findings and recommendations filed 2/12/2020 (ECF No. 21 ); DISMISSING Defendants Rios and White, from this action without prejudice; and REFERRING this matter back to the assigned magistrate judge to initiate service of process of the Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Defendants Gebheart, Aube, and Curtis pursuant to the Court's E-Service pilot program for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of California.(Becknal, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Hill v. Rios et al Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CYMEYON HILL, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:18-cv-03224-TLN-EFB Plaintiff, v. ORDER RIOS, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Cymeyon Hill (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 12, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 21 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. 21.) Plaintiff 23 filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations on March 2, 2020. (ECF No. 22.) 24 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 25 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 26 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 27 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 28 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 2 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 3 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the 4 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s 5 analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 12, 2020 (ECF No. 21), are adopted 8 9 10 in full; 2. Defendants Rios and White are DISMISSED from this action without prejudice; and 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge to initiate service of 11 process of the Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need 12 against Defendants Gebheart, Aube, and Curtis pursuant to the Court’s E-Service pilot program 13 for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of California. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 14, 2020 16 17 18 19 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 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.
