Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00024/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00024-6/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

DYLAN SCOTT CORRAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARREN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-00024-TLN-CKD

ORDER

Dylan Scott Corral (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights 

action pursuant to 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 and is before the Court on Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 38.)

On January 13, 2020, 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. 49.) Neither 

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

Accordingly, 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 

1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:18-cv-00024-TLN-CKD Document 50 Filed 02/12/20 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 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 January 13, 2019 (ECF No. 49.), are adopted 

in full; and

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No 38) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: February 11, 2020

Case 2:18-cv-00024-TLN-CKD Document 50 Filed 02/12/20 Page 2 of 2