(PC)Perez v. Moreland

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 24, 2021
• Docket: 2:17-cv-00508
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LISA MARIE BELYEW, No. 2:17-cv-0508 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 KORY L. HONEA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a former county and current state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 28, 2020, 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 twenty-one days. ECF No. 44. Neither 23 party has filed 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 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 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 October 28, 2020 (ECF No. 44), are adopted 5 | in full. 6 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 37) is denied. 7 3. Defendants shall file an answer to the amended complaint within twenty-one days. 8 | DATED: February 23, 2021. 9 10 ( ti / ¢ q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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