(PS)Ortiz v. Hackney ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RENE ORTIZ, No. 2:19-cv-02089-TLN-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RODNEY HACKNEY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Rene Ortiz (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 20 302(c)(21). 21 On May 11, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 22 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days after service of the findings and 24 recommendations. (ECF No. 14.) On June 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a “Response to the Courts’ 25 [sic] Finding and Recommendations,” in which he thanked the Court for its time but did not raise 26 any objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 15.) 27 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 28 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 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 carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 4 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 5 judge’s analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed May 11, 2020 (ECF No. 14), are adopted in 8 full; 9 2. Defendant’s October 24, 2019 Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED; 10 3. The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 11 and 12 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 DATED: July 6, 2020 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28