# (PC) Anderson v. Vangerwen

> District Court, E.D. California · May 23, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10061483

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** May 23, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10061483

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 Ryan David Anderson, No. 2:20-cv-00246-KJM-DB
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 Robert M. Van Gerwen, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided
19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20 On September 7, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which
21 were served on plaintiff, and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the
22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. See F&Rs, ECF No. 28.
23 Those twenty days have passed, and plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and
24 recommendations.
25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,
26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed
27 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law
28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate]
1 | court[.]”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be
2 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
4 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 7, 2023, ECF No. 28 are adopted
5 in full;
6 2. Claims 5, 6, 8, and 9 of the fourth amended complaint, ECF No. 27, are dismissed
7 without leave to amend;
8 3. The claims against defendants County of Shasta, Shasta County Sheriff’s Office,
9 Former Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko, Former Shasta County Sheriff Eric
10 Magrini, Captain David M. Kent, Captain Gene B. Randall, Deputy Joshua R. Millis,
1] Deputy Brandon L. Brown, Doe 1, and Doe 2 are dismissed without leave to amend;
12 and
13 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial
14 proceedings.
15 || DATED: May 22, 2024.
16

13 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10061483. Public record. Not legal advice.