(PC) Stonum v. Peery ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN STONUM, No. 2:20-cv-01992-TLN-EFB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SUSAN PEERY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Melvin Stonum (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, proceeds without counsel in an 18 action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On December 21, 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. 17.) Plaintiff has 23 not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 27 /// 28 /// 1 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 || 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 December 21, 2020 (ECF No. 17), are 5 ADOPTED IN FULL; and 6 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for the reasons set forth in the October 7 16, 2020 Screening Order (ECF No. 7). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 | Dated: February 15, 2021 10 □□ / i “ \/ Lu 12 □□ ZA N\ Troy L. Nunley» } 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28