Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01540/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01540-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN HOUK,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRYAN D. PHILLIPS, Warden, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-01540-JLT-SKO 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANT

ALVA FOLLOWING SCREENING

(Doc. 11) 

Plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

The magistrate judge recommended this action proceed only on Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendant Alvarado-Torres, that Defendant Alva be 

dismissed from the action, and that any remaining claims in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint 

against any defendant be dismissed. (Doc. 11.) Further, the magistrate judge advised that the 

“failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on 

appeal.” (Id. at 3, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). No objections 

were filed. 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this 

case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 

Case 1:23-cv-01540-JLT-SKO Document 12 Filed 12/13/24 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

Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court 

ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 13, 2024 (Doc. 11) are 

ADOPTED IN FULL.

1. This action PROCEEDS only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect 

claim against Defendant Alvarado-Torres.

2. Defendant Alva is DISMISSED from this action.

3. The remaining claims in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against any defendant are 

DISMISSED.

4. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2024 

Case 1:23-cv-01540-JLT-SKO Document 12 Filed 12/13/24 Page 2 of 2