(PS) Phillips v. Haas ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSIE WADE PHILLIPS, No. 2:19-cv-00201-TLN-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 KEVIN HAAS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Jessie Wade Phillips (“Plaintiff”), who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 5, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 16.) Neither 23 party has filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 24 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 25 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 26 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 27 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 28 /// 1 Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings 2 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed November 5, 2019 (ECF No. 16), are 5 adopted in full; 6 2. Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED; 7 3. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, in its entirety; and 8 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: January 6, 2020 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28