Levi Dale Laster, Jr. v. Angel R. Robinson, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00966
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEVI DALE LASTER, JR., Case No. 2:25-cv-0966-WBS-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ANGEL R. ROBINSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a county inmate 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 pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 30, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 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 fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 28 Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 1 | the record and by the proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 30, 2025, are adopted in full; and 4 2. The third amended complaint, ECF No. 22, is DISMISSED without leave to amend for 5 | failure to state a cognizable claim. 6 || Dated: September 5, 2025 ah blew a (hi. WILLIAM B. SHUBB 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28