(PC) Hood v. Rosen

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ALFRED FITZGERALD HOOD, Case No. 2:23-cv-01980-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROSEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a former inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 29, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on plaintiff, and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the 23 findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 | ....°). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations, July 29, 2024, are adopted in full; 5 2. Plaintiff's false prosecution claim against the City of Roseville is dismissed without 6 || leave to amend as non-cognizable; and 7 3. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further pretrial matters. 8 | DATED: August 23, 2024. 9 10 "1 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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