Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02708/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02708-7/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

RODNEY JEROME WOMACK,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID BAUGHMAN, Warden, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-02708-TLN-KJN

ORDER

Plaintiff Rodney Jerome Womack (“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 February 25, 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. 32.) On March 12, 2020, 

Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 33.) 

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); see 

also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed 

findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and 

Case 2:17-cv-02708-TLN-KJN Document 34 Filed 04/06/20 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

decides the motions on the applicable law. 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 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 25, 2020 (ECF No. 32), are 

adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s requests to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 6, 30) are DENIED; and

3. Plaintiff is required to submit the appropriate filing fee within twenty-one days of the 

electronic filing of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 6, 2020

Case 2:17-cv-02708-TLN-KJN Document 34 Filed 04/06/20 Page 2 of 2