Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00294/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00294-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIE LEE BROOKS, II, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DANIEL CASSIE, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 2:23-cv-00294-KJM-JDP (PC) 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On September 9, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 

were served on all parties, and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations. 

 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 

602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de 

novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by 

the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 

///// 

Case 2:23-cv-00294-KJM-JDP Document 51 Filed 12/05/24 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

. . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the proper analysis.1 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 9, 2024, are adopted in full; 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion to strike affirmative defenses, ECF No. 35, is DENIED; and 

 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 

matters. 

DATED: December 4, 2024. 

1

 Although the magistrate judge noted at the time other Findings and Recommendations were 

pending, the court since then has adopted the Findings and Recommendations related to 

Plaintiff’s initial Motion to Strike, granting the motion in part with leave to amend, and denying 

in part. See Findings & Recommendations, ECF No. 45. 

Case 2:23-cv-00294-KJM-JDP Document 51 Filed 12/05/24 Page 2 of 2