(PS) Giddens v. Becerra

Opinion

RICHARD GIDDENS, No. 2:19-cv-01263-TLN-DB Plaintiff, v. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official ORDER capacity as Attorney General of the State of California; and SOLANO COUNTY, Defendants. Plaintiff Richard Giddens (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se with the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On December 15, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days after service of the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 26.) The time for filing objections has expired and no party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). /// The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed December 15, 2020 (ECF No. 26), are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. Defendant Xavier Becerra’s March 11, 2020 Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED; 3. Defendant Solano County’s March 11, 2020 Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED; 4. The First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 20) is DISMISSED without further leave to amend; and 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. DATED: March 17, 2021 /) San Toke

Troy L. Nunley . } United States District Judge