(PC) Murphy v. Pierce

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 6, 2024
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01789
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONRELL D. MURPHY, No. 2:21-cv-1789-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 C. PIERCE, 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. 20 On December 13, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties, and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. The time to file 23 objections has passed, and neither party filed 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 27 the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 28 the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 13, 2023 (ECF No. 57), are 3 ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. The Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Revoke Plaintiff's In Forma Pauperis 5 Status (ECF No. 50); and 6 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 7 proceedings. 8 | Date: February 2, 2024 9 /) 10 “ \/ bu —ZAK ZEN Troy L. Nunley> } 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28