(PC) Ardds v. Kieu

Opinion

ANTOINE L. ARDDS, No. 2:20-cv-0133-TLN-CSK Plaintiff, v. ORDER LEVIN, Defendants.

Plaintiff Antoine L. Ardds (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On January 16, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Following an extension of time, plaintiff 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 entire file, including the objections, 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, (ECF No. 90), are ADOPTED in full; and 2. Defendants’ summary judgment motion, (ECF No. 77), is GRANTED. Date: March 10, 2025 Luu bly TROY L. NUWLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE