(PS) Singh v. CDCR

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAGHVENDRA SINGH, Case No. 2:24-cv-3148-DJC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without an attorney, filed this civil rights 19 action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On 21 January 13, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein 22 which were served on plaintiff, and which contained notice that any objections to the 23 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections 24 were filed. 25 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 26 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law 27 are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) 28 (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the 1 | district court and [the appellate] court... .”). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds 2 | the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper 3 | analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed January 13, 2025, are 6 ADOPTED; 7 2. The complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed without leave to amend for failure to 8 state a cognizable claim; and 9 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this action. 10 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 | Dated: _February 14, 2025 “Daal A CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28