(PC) Pelton v. Amador County, CA

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEAN MICHAEL PELTON, No. 2:21-cv-1968-TLN-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Sean Michael Pelton (“Plaintiff”), a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se, brings 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On March 12, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 21 served on the parties, and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. This deadline has passed, and 23 no objections have been filed. 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 reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 1 | the record and by the proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 12, 2025, (ECF No. 43), are 4 ADOPTED in full; 5 2. Gary Redman is DISMISSED as a defendant in this action; 6 3. Defendant Amador County’s motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 31), is 7 GRANTED; 8 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 9 | Date: March 31, 2025 10 11 7, 2 TROY L. fe 13 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28