Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00275/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00275-13/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 

CARL ECKSTROM, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFFREY BEARD, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-00275 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 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 November 18, 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. 53. Plaintiff has not 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 2:16-cv-00275-KJM-AC Document 67 Filed 01/09/20 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 

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

the record and by the proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 18, 2019, are adopted in full; 

 2. Defendants Martel, Smith, Spain, Edgar, and Pearson are dismissed from this action 

without prejudice for failure to state a claim; 

 3. Plaintiff’s first theory in support of his deliberate indifference claims, premised on the 

alleged denial of assignments to psychological treatment and therapy groups, be dismissed against 

defendant Dovey in his individual capacity; and 

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

proceedings. 

DATED: January 8, 2020. 

Case 2:16-cv-00275-KJM-AC Document 67 Filed 01/09/20 Page 2 of 2