(PC) Peteet v. Sacramento Sheriffs Dept.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 17, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01326
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PRESTON PETEET, No. 2:22-cv-01326-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern 20 District of California local rules. 21 On October 19, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which 22 were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within 23 the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 24 The court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 25 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See 26 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 ///// 1 | Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 2 || the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 19, 2022, are adopted in full; 5 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to 6 || comply with Court rules and orders; and 7 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 8 || DATED: January 17, 2023. 9 10 ( ti / ¢ q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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