(PC) Clark v. CDC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDRE JAMES CLARK, SR., No. 2:24-cv-1748 TLN AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff Andre James Clark Sr. (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner and current county 19 inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 20 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 21 Local Rule 302. 22 On January 29, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 23 were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 24 recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days. (ECF No. 16.) This deadline has 25 passed and Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 26 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 27 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 28 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 1 | magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 2 | Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 3 | the record and by the proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 16) are ADOPTED in full; 6 2. The complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to state a claim; and 7 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 8 | DATED: March 28, 2025 9 10 7, 11 Db TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28