Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00562/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00562-13/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

ROBERT STANLEY WOODS, a.k.a.

SALADIN RUSHDAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAMKAR, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-00562 MCE CKD (P)

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, 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 August 14, 2015, the magistrate judge filed Findings and 

Recommendations herein (ECF No. 103), which were served on all parties and which contained 

notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 

days. Neither party has filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

The Court presumes that the magistrate judge’s 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. 

///

///

Case 2:12-cv-00562-MCE-CKD Document 105 Filed 09/28/15 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

1983). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 14, 2015 (ECF No. 103) are 

ADOPTED IN FULL.

2. Defendants Hamkar, Ali, Nangalama, Tharratt, Toche, and Beard’s Motion to Dismiss 

(ECF No. 82) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically: 

a. The Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s contract claims against Defendants 

Tharratt, Toche, and Beard;

b. The Motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against

Defendants Hamkar, Ali, and Nangalama.

3. Defendant Kelso’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 85) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2015

 1

 The only inaccuracy in the Findings and Recommendations is the statement that 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. See ECF No. 103 at 1. Contrary to that statement, 

the docket and Plaintiff’s opposition to the motions to dismiss (ECF No. 91) indicate that Plaintiff 

has counsel. 

Case 2:12-cv-00562-MCE-CKD Document 105 Filed 09/28/15 Page 2 of 2