(PS)Giddens v. Solano County ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 RICHARD GIDDENS, No. 2:19-cv-0019-KJM-EFB PS 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER 15 SOLANO COUNTY, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 On May 14, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 19 served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 20 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 21 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 22 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 23 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 24 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 25 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 26 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed May 14, 2020, are ADOPTED; and 3 2. This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim as set forth in the court’s 4 March 11, 2020 order. ECF No. 48; see ECF No. 47. 5 DATED: September 30, 2020. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28