(PC) Castro v. Covello

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH ANTHONY CASTRO, No. 2:24-cv-0928 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 PATRICK COVELLO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Joseph Anthony Castro (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed 18 this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 3, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 21 served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. This deadline has passed and 23 Plaintiff has not filed objections. 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 March 3, 2025, (ECF No. 17), are 4 ADOPTED in full; and 5 2. Plaintiff's second amended complaint is DISMISSED; and 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this action. 7 | DATED: April 7, 2025 8 10 TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28