(PC) Turner v. Singh

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAFONZO R. TURNER, No. 2:23-cv-00954 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SINGH, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking 18 relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 23, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Plaintiff has not filed objections 23 to the findings and recommendations, but he has requested an extension of time to file an 24 amended complaint, ECF No. 23, and a first amended complaint, ECF No. 24. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 27 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 1 | ....°). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 22) are adopted in full; 5 2. Plaintiffs Motion to Stay is DENIED; and 6 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judges for further pretrial 7 || proceedings. 8 | DATED: April 29, 2024. 9 10 "1 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28