Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02304/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02304-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronnie Cherokee Brown
Plaintiff
D. Henry
Defendant

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONNIE CHEROKEE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. HENRY,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-02304-TLN-KJN

ORDER

Plaintiff Ronnie Cherokee Brown (“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 17, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

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. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff 

filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 16.)

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 

Case 2:19-cv-02304-TLN-KJN Document 17 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

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 Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Having carefully reviewed the entire 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 17, 2019, are adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim is DISMISSED with prejudice; and

3. This action proceeds solely on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant 

D. Henry.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: January 8, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-02304-TLN-KJN Document 17 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 2