Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00628/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00628-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN LEWIS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAN QUINTO, et al., 

Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-628-ADA-CDB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 

STATE LAW CLAIM

(ECF No. 19)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS FOR 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 13, 14, 16, 19)

Plaintiff Kevin Lewis, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) This 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, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending this Court dismisses the state law claim, deny Plaintiff’s 

motion for summary judgment, and deny Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. (ECF No. 19.)

Therein, the Court advised Plaintiff that he could file written objections to the findings and 

recommendations within fourteen days of service. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff has filed no objections, 

and the time to do so has passed.

Case 1:22-cv-00628-CDB Document 20 Filed 10/25/23 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 

a de novo review of this case. After carefully reviewing the entire file, the Court finds the

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

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 14, 2023, (ECF No. 19), are 

ADOPTED in FULL;

2. Plaintiff’s state law claim is DISMISSED with prejudice, (see ECF No. 15); 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 13), is DENIED; 

4. Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment, (ECF Nos. 14, 16), are DENIED; and

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

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2023 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00628-CDB Document 20 Filed 10/25/23 Page 2 of 2