Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00903/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00903-5/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 

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFF LYNCH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-00903 KJM SCR 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 as provided 

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On May 1, 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 21 days. Plaintiff has not 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 reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 

by the record and by the proper analysis. 

Case 2:23-cv-00903-KJM-SCR Document 23 Filed 08/19/24 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 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 1, 2024 (ECF No. 13) are adopted in 

full. 

 2. Plaintiff’s due process claim is dismissed as to defendant Ralph Diaz for failure to state 

a claim and without further leave to amend. 

 3. This case proceeds on plaintiff’s retaliation claim against each named defendant and 

plaintiff’s due process claim against defendants Alfaro, Lynch, Rojas, Baughman and Lozano. 

 4. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings. 

DATED: August 16, 2024. 

Case 2:23-cv-00903-KJM-SCR Document 23 Filed 08/19/24 Page 2 of 2