Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01636/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01636-10/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

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

Plaintiff Charles W. Windham (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

claims of excessive force against Defendants M. Marin, D. Uribe, W. Rasley, J. Contreras, A. Capano, 

R. Rubio and Doe #1, and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendants C. 

Navarro, V. Morales, M. Marin and S. Shiver.

On August 6, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge despite Defendants’ non-consent be 

denied. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any

objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (ECF No. 41.) More than fourteen

days have passed and no objections have been filed. 

CHARLES W. WINDHAM,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. MARIN, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01636-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED BEFORE 

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

(ECF No. 41)

Case 1:14-cv-01636-DAD-BAM Document 48 Filed 09/01/15 Page 1 of 2
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

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. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and 

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 6, 2015, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01636-DAD-BAM Document 48 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 2