Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03224/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03224-4/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

CYMEYON HILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIOS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-03224-TLN-EFB

ORDER

Cymeyon Hill (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights 

action pursuant to 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 February 12, 2020, 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. 21.) Plaintiff 

filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations on March 2, 2020. (ECF No. 22.)

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-03224-TLN-JDP Document 23 Filed 04/16/20 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 February 12, 2020 (ECF No. 21), are adopted 

in full; 

2. Defendants Rios and White are DISMISSED from this action without prejudice; and

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge to initiate service of 

process of the Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need 

against Defendants Gebheart, Aube, and Curtis pursuant to the Court’s E-Service pilot program 

for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 14, 2020

Case 2:18-cv-03224-TLN-JDP Document 23 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 2