Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01621/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01621-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Taylor A. Beeson
Plaintiff
Birtwell
Defendant
Warden
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAYLOR A. BEESON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN F.C.I. HERLONG, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-1621 DJC CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil action. 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 July 19, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that 

objections could be filed.

1

 The time for filing objections has expired and Plaintiff has 

not filed objections.

Although it appears from the file that Plaintiff’s copy of the findings and

recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the Plaintiff’s 

responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant 

1 On October 16, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued separate Finding and Recommendations (ECF No. 

22) that will be addressed in a subsequent order.

Case 2:23-cv-01621-DJC-CKD Document 27 Filed 11/08/24 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

to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully 

effective.

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 the file, 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 July 19, 2024, are adopted in full; 

2. All claims other than a claim for excessive use of force in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment and claim for retaliation for protected conduct arising under the 

First Amendment against defendant Lt. Birtwell are dismissed; and

3. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for all further pretrial 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2024 

Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 2:23-cv-01621-DJC-CKD Document 27 Filed 11/08/24 Page 2 of 2