Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01629/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01629-6/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DYLAN SCOTT CORRAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOULDIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-01629-TLN-CKD

ORDER

Plaintiff Dylan Scott Corral (“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 November 12, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 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. (ECF No. 34.) On November 20, 

2019, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 35.) 

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 

Case 2:18-cv-01629-TLN-CKD Document 36 Filed 01/13/20 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

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

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 

finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 

judge’s analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed November 12, 2019 (ECF No. 34), are 

adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 10, 2020

Case 2:18-cv-01629-TLN-CKD Document 36 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 2