(PC) Hill v. Seibel

Opinion

CYMEYON HILL, No. 2:21-cv-02382 KJM SCR P Plaintiff, v. ORDER A. SCOTLAND, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 March 13, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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 twenty-one days. Neither party 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 (ECF No. 53) are adopted in full; 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 48) is denied as moot; and 2. This case is dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the local rules and with court orders. DATED: September 16, 2024. CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DLB:9/Hill2382.800