(PC) Windham v. State of California

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 14, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00773
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES WINDHAM, No. 2:20-cv-00773-TLN-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Charles Windham (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil 18 rights action 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 January 25, 2021, 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 thirty days. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff has 23 not filed 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). 27 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed January 25, 2021 (ECF No. 20), are 3 | ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. This action is DISMISSED; and 5 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 6 ITIS SO ORDERED. 7 | DATED: April 13, 2021 8

10 “ Mr / Vhokay 11 Troy L. Nuhlep D United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28