Roberto J. Edwards v. R. Singh, et al.

E.D. California

Roberto J. Edwards v. R. Singh, et al.

DecidedSeptember 10, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-02480

StatusUnknown

This text of Roberto J. Edwards v. R. Singh, et al. (Roberto J. Edwards v. R. Singh, 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

Roberto J. Edwards v. R. Singh, 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 ROBERTO J. EDWARDS, Case No. 2:24-cv-2480-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 R. SINGH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Roberto J. Edwards (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this 18 civil rights 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 August 1, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on Plaintiff, and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff has not filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations.1 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 1 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 27 recommendations was returned, Plaintiff was properly served. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 28 of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 2 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 3 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 4 the record and by the proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 1, 2025 (ECF No. 20) are ADOPTED 7 in full; 8 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 9 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 10 Date: September 9, 2025 11 12 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 ROBERTO J. EDWARDS, Case No. 2:24-cv-2480-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 R. SINGH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Roberto J. Edwards (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this 18 civil rights 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 August 1, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on Plaintiff, and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff has not filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations.1 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 1 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 27 recommendations was returned, Plaintiff was properly served. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 28 of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 2 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 3 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 4 the record and by the proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 1, 2025 (ECF No. 20) are ADOPTED 7 in full; 8 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 9 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 10 Date: September 9, 2025 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Roberto J. Edwards v. R. Singh, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberto-j-edwards-v-r-singh-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack