Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00650/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00650-3/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

DURELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. MORENO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-00650-WBS-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 pursuant to 

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

On January 23, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff 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 . . . .”). 

Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 

the record and by the proper analysis.

Case 2:22-cv-00650-JDP Document 18 Filed 02/28/23 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 23, 2023, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim against defendant Haynes is dismissed as noncognizable;1

3. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims remain pending against defendants Smith, 

Haynes, Moreno, and Williams; and

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

proceedings consistent with this Order.

Dated: February 27, 2023

1 The court notes that plaintiff raises additional allegations regarding the First 

Amendment claim in his objections. (See Docket No. 17.) Because these additional allegations 

were not raised in the Second Amended Complaint, the court does not consider them in assessing 

the sufficiency of plaintiff’s First Amendment claim.

Case 2:22-cv-00650-JDP Document 18 Filed 02/28/23 Page 2 of 2