(PC) Adkins v. Austin

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DUPREE LAMONT ADKINS, No. 2:21-cv-0738 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 LORI W. AUSTIN 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 June 6, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. (ECF No. 34.) 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, 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 | ....°). 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 June 6, 2023 (ECF No. 34) are adopted in full; 5 2. Plaintiffs claims against defendants Doe, Tan, and Austin are dismissed; 6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to indicate the dismissal of defendants Doe, Tan, and 7 Austin on the docket; 8 4. Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim against defendant Pham is dismissed; and 9 5. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. 10 | DATED: August 21, 2023. 1] 12 eee B CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28