(PC) Blalock v. Miranda ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES BLALOCK, No. 2:17-cv-1813-TLN-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. CLARK KELSO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Charles Block (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 11, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 21 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 31.) Neither party has 23 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 May 11, 2020 (ECF No. 31), are adopted in 5 full; 6 2. Defendant Gideon is DISMISSED from this action. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED: June 22, 2020 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28