(PC) Hill v. Troth et al, No. 2:2022cv01817 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/4/2023 ADOPTING 23 Findings and Recommendations in full, GRANTING 17 Motion to Dismiss to the extent the Court agrees that Plaintiff may not proceed on his damages claims against Defendants in their official capacities, and DENYING 17 Motion to Dismiss as to claims against Defendant Suziki in her individual capacity. Defendant Suziki shall file an answer to 1 Complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. The matter is REFERRED back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Huang, H)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Hill v. Troth et al Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CYMEYON HILL 12 13 14 15 No. 2:22-CV-1817-TLN-DMC Plaintiff, ORDER v. TROTH, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District 19 of California local rules. 20 On June 13, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within 22 the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 23 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 24 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 25 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 26 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 27 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 28 the record and by the proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 13, 2023 (ECF No. 23) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED to the extent the Court agrees 5 that Plaintiff may not proceed on his damages claims against Defendants in their official 6 capacities; 7 8 9 10 11 12 3. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is DENIED as to claims against Defendant Suziki in her individual capacity; 4. Defendant Suziki shall file an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint within 30 days of the date of this order; and 5. The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Date: August 4, 2023 13 14 15 16 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 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.
