Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01015/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01015-3/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 

ELI’EZER RE’UEL BEN-BINYAMIN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. BENAVIDEZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-1015-KJM-EFB 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 13, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, in 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. 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 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 2:18-cv-01015-DAD-JDP Document 36 Filed 03/20/20 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 13, 2020, are adopted in full; 

 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18) is DENIED; 

 3. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 22) is DENIED; and 

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

proceedings. 

DATED: March 19, 2020. 

Case 2:18-cv-01015-DAD-JDP Document 36 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 2