(PC) Howard v. Aryad

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 GREGORY EUGENE HOWARD, No. 2:19-cv-02062-KJM-CKD 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 ARYAD, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 18 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On April 11, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 20 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 21 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to 22 the findings and recommendations. 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 25 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 26 by 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. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 11, 2022, are adopted in full. 3 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 33) is granted. 4 3. Plaintiff's second amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice. 5 4. The clerk of court is directed to close this case. 6 || DATED: June 15, 2022. 9 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28