(PC) Brown v. Vovkulin et al, No. 2:2020cv02098 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/19/2021 ADOPTING 17 Findings and Recommendations in full, and DISMISSING Defendants Holmes and Worrell without further leave to amend. This case is proceeding on First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Vovkulin and Milliken. This matter is REFERRED back to the magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings. (Huang, H)

Download PDF
(PC) Brown v. Vovkulin 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 ANTHONY BROWN, SR., 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:20-cv-02098-TLN-CKD ORDER v. V. VOVKULIN, 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 August 23, 2021, 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 August 23, 2021 (ECF No. 17) are adopted in 3 full; 4 2. Defendants Holmes and Worrell are dismissed without further leave to amend; 5 3. This case is proceeding on First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants 6 7 8 Vovkulin and Milliken; and 4. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings. Date: October 19, 2021 9 10 11 12 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 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.