(PS) Alford v. Kernan ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICKEY LOUIS ALFORD, No. 2:19-cv-00732 KJM AC (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SCOTT KERNAN and RICKY TAYLOR, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 18 United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). On July 23, 2019, the 19 court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, dismissing the case with 20 prejudice. ECF No. 5. However, on July 16, 2019—between the filing of the magistrate judge’s 21 findings and recommendations and the court’s July 23, 2019 order—plaintiff filed a motion for a 22 temporary restraining order (“TRO”). ECF No. 4. 23 On July 30, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations regarding the 24 TRO motion which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any 25 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF 26 No. 7. Plaintiff has not filed objections to these findings and recommendations. 27 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 28 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 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 July 30, 2019, are adopted in full; 7 2. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 4) is DENIED; and 8 3. This case remains closed. 9 DATED: August 26, 2019. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28