Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00423/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00423-8/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD ASHKER, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-00423-JLT-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL

(Doc. No. 62)

 

Todd Ashker is a state inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

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

On December 16, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and 

recommendations, recommending that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s claims against 

(1) Defendants Kernan, Diaz, Allison, Alfaro, Gipson, Moak, Paris, Prelip, Perez, Pfeiffer, 

Alafa, Hightower, Ortiz, Stebbins, Hammer, and Speidel for retaliation in violation of the First 

Amendment; (2) Defendants Kernan, Diaz, Allison, Alfaro, Gipson, Moak, Perez, Paris, Prelip, 

Pfeiffer, Alafa, Hightower, Ortiz, and Stebbins for violation of the Eighth Amendment for 

unconstitutional conditions of confinement; and (3) Kernan, Diaz, Allison, Alfaro, Gipson, 

Moak, Perez, Paris, Prelip, Pfeiffer, Alafa for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due 

Process Clause. (Doc. No. 62). The magistrate judge recommended that all other claims be 

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 64 Filed 01/13/22 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

dismissed.

The parties were granted twenty-one days in which to file objections to the findings and 

recommendations. (Id.) The period for filing objections has expired, and neither party has 

filed objections or otherwise responded to the findings and recommendations. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by 

the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 16, 2021 (Doc. No. 62), 

are adopted in full;

2. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims against (1) Defendants Kernan, 

Diaz, Allison, Alfaro, Gipson, Moak, Paris, Prelip, Perez, Pfeiffer, Alafa, 

Hightower, Ortiz, Stebbins, Hammer, and Speidel for retaliation in violation of 

the First Amendment; (2) Defendants Kernan, Diaz, Allison, Alfaro, Gipson, 

Moak, Perez, Paris, Prelip, Pfeiffer, Alafa, Hightower, Ortiz, and Stebbins for 

violation of the Eighth Amendment for unconstitutional conditions of 

confinement; and (3) Kernan, Diaz, Allison, Alfaro, Gipson, Moak, Perez, Paris,

Prelip, Pfeiffer, Alafa for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process 

Clause;

3. All other claims are dismissed from this action with prejudice;

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

consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2022 

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 64 Filed 01/13/22 Page 2 of 2