(PS) Johnson v. Gibson

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DELONE T. JOHNSON, No. 2:23–cv–00344-KJM–CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER

13 v.

14 DANIEL GIBSON, 15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. The matter was referred 17 to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c). 18 On September 26, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 19 contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 20 filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections. The court has reviewed the file and 21 finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 22 judge’s analysis. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 25 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 ///// 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 of September 26, 2023 are adopted in full; 5 2. This action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and 6 3. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. 7 | DATED: December 20, 2023. 10 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28