(PC) Autry v. Jones

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JONATHAN COLLIN AUTRY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00554-TLN-JDP 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On March 14, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 which were served on Plaintiff, and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 21 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 41.) The time to 22 file objections has passed, and Plaintiff did not file any objections. 23 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 24 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 25 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 26 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court ….”). 27 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 28 the record and by the proper analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations, filed on March 14, 2024 (ECE No. 41), are 3 ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Susan are DISMISSED without prejudice; 5 and 6 3. This mater is referred back to the magistrate judge for further pre-trial 7 proceedings. 8 | Date: April 10, 2024 9 /) 10 “ ! Lu 11 Troy L. Nunley ] United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28