(PC) Ray v. Petras

Opinion

ANTHONY D. RAY, No. 2:19-cv-01865-KJM-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ONGEN PETRA, 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 February 2, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 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 de novo. 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 filed February 2, 2022, are adopted in full; 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 59, is granted; 3. Plaintiffs claims against defendants Bick and McAllister are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; 4. Judgment is entered in favor of defendant Petras and against plaintiff; and 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. DATED: March 18, 2022. ( ti / ¢ q_/ "1 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE