Opinion
2:19-cv-1680 DAD AC P
04-17-2023
NATHAN HILL, Plaintiff, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendant.
ORDER
HON. DANIEL J. CALABRETTA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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 November 4, 2022, the magistrate judge issued 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. 54. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 69. His objections, however, are untimely. Despite this fact, given that some delays appear to have been related to changes in plaintiff's address, the court considers plaintiff's objections.
After being granted two extensions of time (see ECF Nos. 56, 61) to file objections to the court's findings and recommendations issued November 4, 2022, plaintiff was informed on January 10, 2023, that his objections were to be filed no later than February 6, 2023, and that no additional extensions of time would be granted (see ECF No. 62 at 2). Despite this fact, plaintiff filed a third request for an extension of time, which was denied (see ECF Nos. 63, 64) and a fourth request for an extension of time, which was also denied (see ECF Nos. 65, 66). Thereafter, on February 7, 2023, plaintiff signed his objections (ECF No. 69 at 2, 39), and on February 16, 2023, they were docketed (ECF No. 69).
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued November 4, 2022 (ECF No. 54), are ADOPTED in full;
2. This action shall PROCEED on the following claims against the following defendants only:
a. Claim Two (deliberate indifference) against defendants Navarro, Medina, Ceballos, and the Doe defendant captain who gave the initial order to cuff plaintiff in his cell in August 201 9, and b. Claim Four (excessive force) against defendants Vera, Barra, Mancilla, Gomez, Reyes, the Doe defendant tower guard who opened plaintiff's cell door in November 2019, and the Doe correctional officers who allegedly participated in the beating;
3. The following claims and defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1):
a. Claims One and Three in their entirety;
b. Claim Two against defendant Captain Gallagher;
c. Claim Four against defendants Randolph and Navarro, and d. All named defendants not specified in paragraph 1, above, and
4. Plaintiff's motion for a restraining order (ECF No. 52 at 2) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.