Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00866/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00866-3/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 

GERALD WILSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. PRICE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0866-KJM-EFB P 

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 in 

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

 On February 9, 2017, 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. On March 3, 2017, plaintiff 

filed a notice of change of address, ECF No. 28, and on March 6, 2017, the findings and 

recommendations were re-served on plaintiff at his new address of record. 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 

Case 2:15-cv-00866-KJM-EFB Document 29 Filed 03/24/17 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

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 February 9, 2017, are adopted in full; and 

 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19) is DENIED without prejudice. 

DATED: March 23, 2017 

Case 2:15-cv-00866-KJM-EFB Document 29 Filed 03/24/17 Page 2 of 2