(PC) Duran v. Cervantes

District Court, E.D. California·Decided September 28, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-00320·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH DURAN, No. 2:20-CV-0320-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CELINE CERVANTES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 19 Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On May 27, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, 21 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 22 within the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been 23 filed. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 25 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 26 reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations 27 of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 28 ///// 1 | court....”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis.! 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 27, 2021, are adopted in full; 5 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution and 6 || failure to comply with court rules and orders; and 7 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 8 | DATED: September 27, 2021. 9 10 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | 1 On November 1, 2020, the Magistrate Judge warned plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint within the time provided may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See MJ Order (Nov. 2, 2020) at 3, ECF No. 14 (citing 28 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992); Local Rule 110).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(PC) Duran v. Cervantes, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

(PC) Duran v. Cervantes ((PC) Duran v. Cervantes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Donald Milton Orand v. United States
602 F.2d 207 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Arthur Robbins, III v. Tom L. Carey
481 F.3d 1143 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)