(PC) Belmonte v. Palomares ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL BELMONTE, No. 2:19-cv-00163 TLN CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S.PALOMARES, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Miguel Belmonte (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, has 18 filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 23, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff has 23 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff was properly 24 served and it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all 25 times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is 26 fully effective. 27 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 28 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 1 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983); see also 28 2 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 3 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and 4 recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 23, 2020 (ECF No. 42), are 7 ADOPTED IN FULL; and 8 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 DATED: December 14, 2020 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28