(PC)Wright v. Hansan ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL WEBSTER WRIGHT, No. 2:17-cv-260-KJM-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. LEWIS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil action. The matter was 18 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 19 Rule 302. 20 On July 8, 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 fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to 23 the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 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 July 8, 2020, are adopted in full; 5 2. Defendants CSP-Sac and the Reasonable Accommodations Panel are dismissed; and 6 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 7 proceedings. 8 DATED: September 4, 2020. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28