(PC) Rowley v. Allison

District Court, E.D. California·Decided March 28, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-00648·Unknown

Opinion

MATTHEW DERRICK ROWLEY, No. 2:23-cv-0648-TLN-CKD Plaintiff, v. ORDER KATHLEEN ALLISON, 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 14, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 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. 11.) The time to file objections has passed, and neither party filed any objections. 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations, filed on February 14, 2024, (ECF No. XX) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Date: March 27, 2024 / “ the

United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(PC) Rowley v. Allison, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

(PC) Rowley v. Allison ((PC) Rowley v. Allison) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Alumino-Thermic Corp. v. Goldschmidt Thermit Co.
25 F.2d 206 (Third Circuit, 1928)