(PC) Samuel v. Department of Justice ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HODA SAMUEL, No. 2:18-cv-2343-KJM-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a pro se claimant in federal custody, brings this action against numerous 18 defendants pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 288 (1971). The matter 19 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 20 Local Rule 302. 21 On February 5, 2020, 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 States, 26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 27 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 1 . . . .”). 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 February 5, 2020, are adopted in full; 5 2. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (ECF No. 24) is DISMISSED without leave to 6 amend; and 7 3. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE the case. 8 DATED: March 19, 2020. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28