(PC) Stout v. Newsom
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 DOUGLAS J. STOUT, et al., No. 2:20-cv-01674-JAM-CKD 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiffs, state prisoners proceeding pro se, have filed this civil rights action seeking 18 relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On December 3, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having 27 reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 28 and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 3, 2020, are adopted in full; and 3 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 4 5 DATED: January 25, 2021 /s/ John A. Mendez 6 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
(PC) Stout v. Newsom ((PC) Stout v. Newsom) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.