Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00875/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00875-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lively
Defendant
Jeff Lynch
Defendant
Moirara
Defendant
Adam Randolph Powell
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Adam Randolph Powell, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Jeff Lynch, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-00875-KJM-DMC-P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 

Eastern District of California local rules. 

 On January 12, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, 

which were served on the parties, and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 

within the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been 

filed. 

 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] 

///// 

Case 2:23-cv-00875-DC-DMC Document 23 Filed 04/03/24 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 

court . . . .”). 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 as follows: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 12, 2024, ECF No. 17, 

are adopted in full. 

 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, as to 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment safety claim against Defendants Moirara and Lively. 

 3. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Lynch are DISMISSED for failure to 

state a claim. 

 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Lynch as a defendant to this 

action. 

 5. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further 

proceedings. 

DATED: April 3, 2024. 

Case 2:23-cv-00875-DC-DMC Document 23 Filed 04/03/24 Page 2 of 2