Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01248/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01248-4/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 

HILLIARD WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAROM A. DASZKO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-1248 KJM AC 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 February 8, 2016, 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. 37. Neither party 

has 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-01248-AC Document 39 Filed 03/14/16 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 

that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 8, 2016, are adopted in full. 

 2. The motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Mathis, ECF No. 19, is denied. 

 3. The motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Daszko, ECF No. 21, is denied. 

 4. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against defendants 

Mathis and Daszko. 

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

proceedings. 

DATED: March 14, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-01248-AC Document 39 Filed 03/14/16 Page 2 of 2