(PC) Flores v. Corcarn

District Court, E.D. California·Decided November 12, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-01973·Unknown

Opinion

CESAR FLORES, No. 2:20-cv-01973-KJM-CKD Plaintiff, v. ORDER CORCARN, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 22, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 22, 2021, are adopted in full; and 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice based on plaintiff’s failure to file a third amended complaint. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). DATED: November 12, 2021. CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

(PC) Flores v. Corcarn, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

(PC) Flores v. Corcarn ((PC) Flores v. Corcarn) — 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)
Arthur Robbins, III v. Tom L. Carey
481 F.3d 1143 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)