Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01750/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01750-7/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND LEE GOINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. RUTHERFORND, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-01750-TLN-AC

ORDER

Plaintiff Raymond Lee Goins (“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 December 11, 2019, 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. 35.) Neither 

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

Accordingly, 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); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

///

Case 2:18-cv-01750-TLN-AC Document 36 Filed 01/13/20 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 under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings 

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed December 11, 2019 (ECF No. 35), are 

adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 30) is GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Hard, Saavedra, and Saelee are DISMISSED,

with prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies against them 

before commencing this action, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and Plaintiff’s failure to oppose 

Defendants’ motion, see Local Rule 230(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and 

4. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants Rutherford and 

Elizarraras used excessive force against Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 8, 2020

Case 2:18-cv-01750-TLN-AC Document 36 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 2