(PC) Edwards v. Corter

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES A. EDWARDS, Case No. 2:23-cv-02868-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CORTER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Charles A. Edwards (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has 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 September 5, 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 fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed 23 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 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 (ECF No. 18) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. Defendant Perry is DISMISSED as a party to this action because the amended 5 | complaint, despite naming them as a defendant, makes no allegation of wrongdoing against them; 6 | and 7 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 8 | matters. 9 | Date: October 8, 2024 10 11 7, 12 B TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28