(PC) Howell v. Liddell ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREEN J. HOWELL, No. 2:19-cv-00578-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 M. LIDELL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Kareen J. Howell (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 27, 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. 36.) No party 23 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 February 27, 2020 (ECF No. 36), are 5 adopted in full; and 6 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 33) is DENIED without prejudice 7 to renewal after April 1, 2020. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 DATED: April 7, 2020 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28