IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 30, 2013
R. RAMOS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by the Eastern District of California local rules.
On March 7, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
As part of its review, this court presumes that any findings of fact are correct and reviews any conclusions of law de novo. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979); Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). In this case, however, the court cannot determine what facts the magistrate found to be undisputed: he first summarizes the plaintiff's contentions and then lists the facts that defendants assert are undisputed. He concludes that the evidence does not establish any risk to plaintiff's safety, based on his upper-tier housing assignment, and also that the undisputed evidence does not bear out plaintiff's claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's serious medical need. ECF No. 66 at 10, 11. However, as the magistrate judge never explicitly finds any facts to be undisputed, this court cannot presume that any of the factual recitations in the findings and recommendations are correct and so cannot determine whether the legal conclusions flowing from the facts should be upheld.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed March 7, 2013, are not adopted; and
2. The case is remanded to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.