Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01828/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01828-18/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

GERALD SPENCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. KAUR, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-01828-TLN-KJN

ORDER

Plaintiff Gerald Spence (“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 December 20, 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. 90.) On January 

6, 2020, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 

(ECF No. 91.) 

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). As 

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 

Case 2:16-cv-01828-TLN-KJN Document 92 Filed 01/21/20 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

assumes its correctness and 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 December 20, 2019 (ECF No. 90), are 

adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 61) is GRANTED as to his retaliation claims 

against Sgt. Chambers, and DENIED in all other respects; and

3. This action shall proceed solely on the retaliation claims raised in Plaintiff’s Third 

Amended Complaint, filed on March 7, 2019 (ECF No. 89), against Defendants Kaur and Sgt. 

Chambers, based on actions taken prior to the RVR hearing on November 18, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 16, 2020

Case 2:16-cv-01828-TLN-KJN Document 92 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 2