Raymond E. Moore, Jr. v. Butte County, et al.

E.D. California

Raymond E. Moore, Jr. v. Butte County, et al.

DecidedSeptember 8, 2025

Docket2:22-cv-01517

StatusUnknown

This text of Raymond E. Moore, Jr. v. Butte County, et al. (Raymond E. Moore, Jr. v. Butte County, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Raymond E. Moore, Jr. v. Butte County, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND E. MOORE, Jr., Case No. 2:22-cv-1517-DJC-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BUTTE COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights 18 action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 30, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on Plaintiff, and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any 22 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 23 days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 25 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law 26 are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) 27 (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the 28 district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds 1 || the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper 2 | analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 30, 2025, are adopted in full; 5 2. Defendant Sage is dismissed from this action for plaintiff's failure to serve 6 || Sage within the time specified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m); and 7 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further 8 || pretrial matters. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || Dated: _September 5, 2025 “Daal A CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta te UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND E. MOORE, Jr., Case No. 2:22-cv-1517-DJC-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BUTTE COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights 18 action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 30, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on Plaintiff, and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any 22 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 23 days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 25 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law 26 are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) 27 (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the 28 district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds 1 || the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper 2 | analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 30, 2025, are adopted in full; 5 2. Defendant Sage is dismissed from this action for plaintiff's failure to serve 6 || Sage within the time specified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m); and 7 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further 8 || pretrial matters. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || Dated: _September 5, 2025 “Daal A CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta te UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Raymond E. Moore, Jr. v. Butte County, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-e-moore-jr-v-butte-county-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack