Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00450/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00450-12/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

KENNETH LEE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

KUERSTON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-00450-TLN-KJN

ORDER

Plaintiff Kenneth Lee Taylor (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding through counsel,

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 July 08, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 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. (ECF No. 77.) Neither 

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

Accordingly, 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); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

/// 

Case 2:19-cv-00450-DJC-CSK Document 78 Filed 08/25/20 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 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 July 08, 2020 (ECF No. 77), are adopted in 

full;

2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 45) is DENIED as to the claim 

that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights when they allegedly threw him to 

the ground; Defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to all other claims. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 25, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-00450-DJC-CSK Document 78 Filed 08/25/20 Page 2 of 2