Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02705/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02705-11/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 

MIGUEL DIAZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. FOX, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-2705 JAM 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 pursuant to 

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

 On June 28, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 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. Defendants have filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 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. See Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that, in embracing the 

physical injury standard under 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e) adopted by the Second, Fifth, and Eleventh 

circuits, the Ninth Circuit does not subscribe to the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning that Eighth 

Case 2:14-cv-02705-JAM-CKD Document 41 Filed 08/31/16 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

Amendment claims require more than de minimis injury). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 28, 2016 are adopted in full; 

 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 28) is denied. 

DATED: August 31, 2016 

 John A. Mendez___________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 2:14-cv-02705-JAM-CKD Document 41 Filed 08/31/16 Page 2 of 2