Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02029/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02029-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Barbour
Defendant
Kenneth Harvey
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

KENNETH HARVEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. BARBOUR, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:12-cv-02029 KJM DB 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging defendant Barbour forced him to do strenuous manual labor 

contrary to his medical orders in violation of his First and Eighth Amendment rights. 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 March 1, 2017, 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. 50.) 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). Having reviewed 

Case 2:12-cv-02029-KJM-DB Document 51 Filed 03/21/17 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

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 March 1, 2017 (ECF No. 55) are adopted 

in full; 

 2. Defendant Barbour’s partial motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies is granted; and 

 3. Plaintiff’s claim for deliberate indifference is dismissed. 

DATED: March 21, 2017 

Case 2:12-cv-02029-KJM-DB Document 51 Filed 03/21/17 Page 2 of 2