Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00434/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00434-4/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

JOSE ABEL GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

HLA WIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-00434-TLN-DMC

ORDER

Plaintiff Jose Abel Garcia (“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 October 2, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 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. 17.) 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-00434-TLN-DMC Document 24 Filed 01/07/20 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 October 2, 2019 (ECF No. 17), are adopted 

in full;

2. Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, based on the denial of morphine, is DISMISSED;

3. Defendant Burton is DISMISSED; and

4. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) as to 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Win, Bzoskie, Malet, Chapnick, 

Awatani, and Duncan. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 6, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-00434-TLN-DMC Document 24 Filed 01/07/20 Page 2 of 2