(PC)Noor v. Pigniolo ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WAHIDULLAH QUDRETULLAH No. 2:19-CV-0180-KJM-DMC-P NOOR, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 L. PIGNIOLO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 20 Eastern District of California local rules. 21 On October 4, 2019, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, 22 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 23 within the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been 24 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 are 27 reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations 28 of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 1 court . . . .”). 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 filed October 4, 2019, are adopted in 5 full; 6 2. Defendant D. Adams is dismissed; 7 3. The action shall proceed on plaintiff’s first amended complaint as against 8 defendant L. Pigniolo on plaintiff’s First Amendment claim only; and 9 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further 10 pretrial proceedings. 11 DATED: November 13, 2019. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28