Opinion
2:22-cv-00650-WBS-JDP (PC)
02-27-2023
DURELL ANTHONY PUCKETT, Plaintiff, v. D. MORENO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, 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 January 23, 2023, 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. Plaintiff 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 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[Determinations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 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 that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed January 23, 2023, are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's First Amendment claim against defendant Haynes is dismissed as non-cognizable;
3. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims remain pending against defendants Smith, Haynes, Moreno, and Williams; and
4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings consistent with this Order.
The court notes that plaintiff raises additional allegations regarding the First Amendment claim in his objections. (See Docket No. 17.) Because these additional allegations were not raised in the Second Amended Complaint, the court does not consider them in assessing the sufficiency of plaintiff's First Amendment claim.