(PC) Kishor v. Stoller

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHANDRA KISHOR, Case No. 2:23-cv-1356-TLN-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOHN STOLLER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(a). 20 On November 5, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 21 were served on Plaintiff, and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 28 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the objections, the Court finds the findings 1 | and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 5, 2024, (ECF No. 32), are 4 ADOPTED in full; and 5 2. Plaintiff's motion to re-introduce evidence and motion to review documents, (ECF No. 6 29), construed as a motion to alter or amend the final judgment, is DENIED. 7 | DATE: December 5, 2024 8 9 Lau bly 1] TROY L. NUNLEY D CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28