(PC) Patrick v. Pierce ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICHOLAS PATRICK, No. 2:17-cv-1205 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 PIERCE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 18 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 21, 2020, 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. 50.) Neither 23 party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, and noted that the magistrate judge’s conclusions on pages 9 2 and 11 of her findings are further bolstered by plaintiff’s having signed his complaint on May 31, 3 2017, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the 4 proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 21, 2020, are adopted in full. 7 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 39) is granted and the complaint 8 is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 9 DATED: March 16, 2020. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28