(PC) Murphy v. Pierce

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONRELL D. MURPHY, No. 2:21-cv-1789-TLN-CSK (P) 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 October 09, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 21 were served on all parties, and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. The deadline has passed, 23 and no objections have been filed. 24 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 25 recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to 26 keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 27 of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 28 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 1 | F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 2 | See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 3 | magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 4 | Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 5 | the record and by the proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 75) are ADOPTED in full; and 8 2. This action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. 9 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 10 | DATE: December 5, 2024 11 12 7, 13 14 TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28