(PC) Aleem v. Lizarraga ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FAROOQ ABDUL ALEEM, No. 2: 18-cv-1210 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. LIZARRAGA, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 On December 21, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 18 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. That period has passed, plaintiff has 20 not objected to the findings and recommendations. 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 ///// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 21, 2020 (ECF No. 60) are adopted 3 | in full; 4 2. Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 57) is denied; and 5 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 6 || proceedings. 7 || DATED: March 30, 2021. 8 9 ( ti / ¢ q_/ 10 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28