(PC) Anderson v. Vangerwen

Opinion

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

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE