(PC) Neal v. State of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT W. NEAL, No. 2:18-cv-1259 KJM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 22, 2019 and October 2, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and 21 recommendations, which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any 22 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff 23 has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 25 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 26 reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations 27 of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 28 ///// 1 court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 22, 2019 and October 2, 2019 are 5 adopted in full; and 6 2. This action is dismissed. 7 DATED: November 6, 2019.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28