Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02868/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02868-4/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

CHARLES A. EDWARDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORTER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-02868-TLN-JDP

ORDER

Plaintiff Charles A. Edwards (“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 September 5, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

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. 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 . . . .”). 

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

Case 2:23-cv-02868-TLN-JDP Document 22 Filed 10/09/24 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 record and by the proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18) are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendant Perry is DISMISSED as a party to this action because the amended 

complaint, despite naming them as a defendant, makes no allegation of wrongdoing against them; 

and 

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

matters. 

Date: October 8, 2024

___________________________________

TROY L. NUNLEY

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02868-TLN-JDP Document 22 Filed 10/09/24 Page 2 of 2