(PC) Blair v. Viss et al, No. 2:2022cv00670 - Document 31 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/20/23 ADOPTING 30 Findings and Recommendations in full and GRANTING 24 Motion for Summary Judgment. This action shall proceed solely on plaintiff's excessive force claim against defendants Viss, Cox, Anaya, and Ruiz and his failure to protect claims against defendants Francisco-Justo and Reynolds. This action is REFFERED back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Licea Chavez, V)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Blair v. Viss et al Doc. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JERMAINE BLAIR, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:22-cv-00670 KJM DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER VISS, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. Plaintiff claims defendants used excessive force against him and failed to protect him in 19 violation of his constitutional rights. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On August 31, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 22 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 23 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 30.) Neither 24 party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 27 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 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 August 31, 2023, are adopted in full; 5 2. Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 24) is granted; 6 3. This action shall proceed solely on plaintiff’s excessive force claim against defendants 7 Viss, Cox, Anaya, and Ruiz and his failure to protect claims against defendants Francisco-Justo 8 and Reynolds; and 9 4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 10 proceedings. 11 DATED: November 20, 2023. 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.
