(PC) Porter v. Icban

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN LAMAR PORTER, No. 2:24-cv-0696-TLN-SCR (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 T. ICBAN, 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 4, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 21 served on Plaintiff, and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. The deadline has passed, and no 23 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] 28 court[.]”). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be 1 | supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 22), are ADOPTED in full; and 4 2. Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunctive relief, (ECF No. 18), is DENIED. 5 | DATE: December 5, 2024 6

TROY L. NUNLEY 9 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28