(PC) Puckett v. Lynch

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT, No. 2:23-cv-00903 KJM SCR P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 JEFF LYNCH, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 18 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On May 1, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 20 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations were to be filed within 21 days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the 22 findings and recommendations. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 25 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 [.]”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 28 by the record and by the proper analysis. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 1, 2024 (ECF No. 13) are adopted in 3 | full. 4 2. Plaintiffs due process claim is dismissed as to defendant Ralph Diaz for failure to state 5 || aclaim and without further leave to amend. 6 3. This case proceeds on plaintiffs retaliation claim against each named defendant and 7 || plaintiff's due process claim against defendants Alfaro, Lynch, Rojas, Baughman and Lozano. 8 4. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings. 9 | DATED: August 16, 2024. 10 1 eee CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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