(PC) Mays v. Stanton Correctional Facility

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 SEAN TAYLOR MAYS, No. 2:23-cv-2339 KJM CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER FACILITY, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 1 filed this civil rights action seeking relief 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 20 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On April 26, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 22 served on plaintiff, and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 23 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the 24 findings and recommendations. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 27 1 On May 31, 2024, the court received notice plaintiff is no longer in the custody of the Solano 28 County Sherriff’s Office. See Not., ECF No. 15. 1 || denovo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 2 || by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 3 || court[.]”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 4 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 14) are adopted in full; 7 2. Plaintiff's second amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim without 8 || leave to amend; and 9 3. The clerk of court is directed to close this case. 10 | DATED: August 16, 2024.

12 3 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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