(PC) Hopper v. Newsom

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOUGLAS L. HOPPER, No. 2:20-CV-1802-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District 19 of California local rules. 20 On July 20, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations which were 21 served on the parties and contained notice that the parties may file objections within the time 22 specified therein. No objections have been filed. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de 25 novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by 26 the 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 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. In light of plaintiff’s repeated non- 1 | compliance with court orders to file an amended complaint, as well as plaintiff's decision not to 2 || file objections to the findings and recommendations, dismissal 1s appropriate. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 20, 2023, are adopted in full; 5 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to 6 || comply with court rules and orders; and 7 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 8 | DATED: August 24, 2023.

10 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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