(PC)Saenz v. California Department of Corrections ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY SAENZ, No. 2: 19-cv-1262 KJM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 20 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On September 23, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 22 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to 24 the findings and recommendations. 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 September 23, 2019 are adopted in full; 5 2. Defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and 6 Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”) are dismissed; and 7 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 8 proceedings. 9 DATED: November 13, 2019. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28