(PC) Gustard v. McCauley

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CHRISTOPHER IAN GUSTARD, Case No. 2:17-cv-00012-TLN-JDP 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 DOUGLAS R. McCAULEY, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking 17 relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On March 19, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 which were served on all parties, and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 21 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 147.) The 22 time to file objections has passed, and neither party has filed any objections. 23 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 24 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 25 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 26 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court ….”). 27 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 28 the record and by the proper analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations, filed on March 19, 2024 (ECF No. 147), are 3 ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 145) is DENIED; 5 3. Plaintiff is directed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 6 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment within thirty (30) days of the 7 electronic filing date of this Order; and 8 4. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further pre-trial 9 proceedings. 10 Date: April 10, 2024 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28