Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00051/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00051-2/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JON A. MESSINGER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-0051 KJM DB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff claims his Eighth Amendment rights were violated because defendants used 

excessive force against him. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 

provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On February 7, 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. 7.) 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 

Case 2:20-cv-00051-DAD-SCR Document 10 Filed 04/24/20 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, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 7, 2020, are adopted in full; 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 5) is denied; and 

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

proceedings. 

DATED: April 23, 2020. 

Case 2:20-cv-00051-DAD-SCR Document 10 Filed 04/24/20 Page 2 of 2