(PC) Fiorito v. United States

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL FIORITO, No. 2:24-cv-00990-TLN-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Michael Fiorito (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 10, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 21 were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. The deadline has passed, and 23 Plaintiff 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 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 1 | the record and by the proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 9) are ADOPTED in full; 3 2. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 5) is DENIED; and 4 3. This case is remanded back to the assigned magistrate judge for further pretrial 5 proceedings. 6 | DATED: March 11, 2025 4 8 10 TROY L. NUNLEY 4 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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