(PS)Giddens v. Solano County ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD GIDDENS, No. 2:19-cv-0019-KJM-EFB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SOLANO COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On February 19, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 18 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 20 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 21 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 22 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 23 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 24 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 26 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 27 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Findings and Recommendations in full. 28 ///// 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 19, 2020, are ADOPTED; 3 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 38) is granted, and plaintiff’s First 4 Amendment Retaliation and Equal Protection claims are dismissed with leave to 5 amend; 6 3. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law 7 claims, although they may be re-pled in any amended complaint; and 8 4. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 9 complaint. 10 DATED: March 11, 2020. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28