(PC) Ramirez v. Vacaville Police Dept.

Opinion

CARLOS A. RAMIREZ, No. 2:20-cv-0391 KJM AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 15, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Although it appears from the file that on January 12, 2022, plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. ] The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed denovo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court ....”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations issued December 15, 2021 (ECF No. 19), are ADOPTED in full, 2. This action is DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); and 3. The clerk of court is directed to close this case. DATED: March 31, 2022.

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE