Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01259/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01259-3/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

WILLIAM LYLE NIBLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF MACOMBER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK (PS)

ORDER

(ECF No. 18)

On October 15, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 

recommendations (ECF No. 18), which were served on the parties and which 

contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 

filed within fourteen (14) days. On October 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled 

“motion for reconsideration,” which the Court interprets as objections to the findings 

and recommendations. (ECF No. 22.) The motion was timely filed within the objection 

period, and in the motion, Plaintiff objects to the findings and recommendations. (Id.

at 2.) Further, a motion for reconsideration filed before a ruling on the findings and 

recommendations is premature. Plaintiff’s objections have been considered by the 

court. 

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to 

which an objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 

Case 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK Document 38 Filed 12/30/24 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

Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); 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 decides the matter 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 School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th 

Cir. 1983).

The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause 

appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and 

recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18) are ADOPTED IN FULL;

and

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary 

Injunction (ECF No. 17) is DENIED; and

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further 

pretrial proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 27, 2024 

Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK Document 38 Filed 12/30/24 Page 2 of 2