(PC) Williams v. Prudhel

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOBBY JAMES WILLIAMS, No. 2:22-cv-2250 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOSHUA PRUDHEL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. 19 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On September 25, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de 26 novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 || reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 2 || and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed. The clerk of court 4 | is directed to close this case. 5 | DATED: January 21, 2025.

7 — | _Y VY — STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28