(PC) Tate v. Andres ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DEREK TATE, No. 2:18-cv-0822 KJM AC P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 J. ANDRES, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 17 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On October 25, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 21 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 33. Neither party 22 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 25 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 25, 2019 (ECF No. 33), are adopted 3 in full. 4 2. Plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s affirmative defenses (ECF No. 29) is denied. 5 3. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 30) is denied. 6 4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 7 proceedings. 8 DATED: December 11, 2019. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28