Elijah Lee Jackson v. Mike

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01460
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELIJAH LEE JACKSON, Case No. 2:24-cv-1460-DJC-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MIKE, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 18 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 30, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on Plaintiff, and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any 22 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 23 days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 25 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law 26 are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) 27 (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the 28 district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds 1 || the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper 2 | analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 30, 2025, are adopted in full; 5 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and 6 failure to comply with court orders for the reasons set forth in the February 7 25, 2025 order; and 8 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || Dated: _September 5, 2025 “Daal A CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta te UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28