(PC) Gustard v. McCauley

Opinion

CHRISTOPHER IAN GUSTARD, Case No. 2:17-cv-00012-TLN-JDP Plaintiff, v. ORDER DOUGLAS R. McCAULEY, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 19, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties, and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 147.) The time to file objections has passed, and neither party has filed any objections. 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 on March 19, 2024 (ECF No. 147), are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 145) is DENIED; 3. Plaintiff is directed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment within thirty (30) days of the electronic filing date of this Order; and 4. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further pre-trial proceedings. Date: April 10, 2024