Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01369/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01369-2/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LUIS A. MARTINEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

P. LOPEZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-01369-KJM-CKD P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has 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 July 31, 2023, 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 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 

///// 

Case 2:22-cv-01369-DC-CKD Document 18 Filed 09/26/23 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 

. . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 31, 2023, are adopted in full. 

2. The official capacity claims against defendants Lopez, Gordon, and Deramus are 

dismissed without leave to amend as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. 

3. This case is proceeding against defendants Lopez, Gordon, and Deramus in their 

individual capacities only on Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims. 

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

proceedings. 

DATED: September 25, 2023. 

Case 2:22-cv-01369-DC-CKD Document 18 Filed 09/26/23 Page 2 of 2