Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01356/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01356-7/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

CHANDRA KISHOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN STOLLER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-1356-TLN-JDP (P)

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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(a).

On November 5, 2024, 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. Plaintiff has 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[.]”). 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the objections, the Court finds the findings 

Case 2:23-cv-01356-TLN-JDP Document 34 Filed 12/06/24 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

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 5, 2024, (ECF No. 32), are 

ADOPTED in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion to re-introduce evidence and motion to review documents, (ECF No. 

29), construed as a motion to alter or amend the final judgment, is DENIED.

DATE: December 5, 2024

___________________________________

TROY L. NUNLEY

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01356-TLN-JDP Document 34 Filed 12/06/24 Page 2 of 2