(PC) Clark v. CDC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDRE JAMES CLARK, SR., No. 2:24-cv-01748-TLN-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 Plaintiff Andre James Clark, Sr. (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this 18 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 November 15, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff 23 has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 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 1 Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to 2 | be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 13) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 5 2. Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 9) is DENIED; and 6 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 7 | proceedings. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Date: January 24, 2025 10

12 13 TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28