(PC) Fisher v. California ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GARY FRANCIS FISHER, A.K.A. No. 2:18-cv-02819-TLN-DB SONNY BARGER, II, A.K.A. GARY 12 DALE BARGER, 13 Plaintiff, ORDER 14 v. 15 CALIFORNIA, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff Gary Francis Fisher, A.K.A. Sonny Barger, II, A.KA. Gary Dale Barger 19 (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 20 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 21 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On November 29, 2018, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations which 23 were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings 24 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff has not filed 25 objections to the findings and recommendations. 26 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 27 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 28 /// 1 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 2 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 3 Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings 4 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued November 29, 2018 (ECF No. 6), are 7 adopted in full; 8 2. This action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(g); and 9 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 DATED: April 27, 2020 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28