From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Payne v. Baser

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 4, 2021
2:20-cv-00553-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021)

Opinion

2:20-cv-00553-TLN-KJN

08-04-2021

JAVANCE ROSS PAYNE, Plaintiff, v. BASER, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Troy L Nunley United States District Judge

Plaintiff Javance Ross Payne (“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 April 2, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 47.) Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 50.)

Plaintiff seems to suggest that he did not receive the “proper assistance” when filing his complaints and appeals in light of his learning, hearing, and cognitive disabilities, and therefore administrative remedies were “technically unavailable” to him. (See id.) Plaintiff argues, therefore, that Defendants C. Baser and Crisanto (collectively, “Defendants”) are not entitled to summary judgment. (See id.) As the magistrate judge noted in the findings and recommendations, Plaintiff still does not cite to any legal authority in his objections to support the assertion that these conditions, standing alone, make administrative remedies unavailable to Plaintiff.

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).

The Court has reviewed the file and 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 April 2, 2021 (ECF No. 47), are ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Payne v. Baser

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 4, 2021
2:20-cv-00553-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021)
Case details for

Payne v. Baser

Case Details

Full title:JAVANCE ROSS PAYNE, Plaintiff, v. BASER, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 4, 2021

Citations

2:20-cv-00553-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021)