(PC) Zinda v. Amador County Sheriff Dept.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 PAUL R. ZINDA, III, Case No. 2:22-cv-01990-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a former county inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 19 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 9, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 22 served on all parties, and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to 24 the findings and recommendations. 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 filed January 9, 2024, ECF No. 28, are adopted in 5 | full; 6 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to 7 || comply with court orders for the reasons set forth in the November 21, 2023 order; 8 3. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 24, is denied as moot; and 9 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 10 | DATED: April 3, 2024. 1] 12 eee B CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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