(PC) Cassells v. Dhillon et al, No. 2:2019cv00644 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/10/2020 ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations in full, DISMISSING Defendant Russell from this action, and REFERRING this matter back to the assigned magistrate judge to initiate service of process of the Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Dhillon.(Huang, H)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Cassells v. Dhillon et al Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEITH MICHAEL CASSELLS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:19-cv-0644-KJM-EFB P v. ORDER BALRAJ SINGH DHILLON, 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 May 4, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 20 21 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the 23 findings and recommendations. The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the 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 2 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 4, 2020, are adopted in full; 5 2. Defendant Russell is DISMISSED from this action; and 6 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge to initiate service of 7 process of the Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Dhillon as provided by the 8 Court’s E-Service pilot program for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of 9 California. 10 DATED: July 10, 2020. 11 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.
