(PS) Austin v. Tetrault ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 George Austin, No. 2:20-cv-0216 KJM DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 Gabrielle Tetrault, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 19 On March 24, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 21 findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days after service of the findings and 22 recommendations. The thirty-day period has expired, and plaintiff has not filed any 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 March 24, 2021 (ECF No. 24) are adopted in 5 | full; 6 2. Plaintiffs January 29, 2020 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is 7 | denied; 8 3. Plaintiff's September 14, 2020 second amended complaint (ECF No. 13) is dismissed 9 | without further leave to amend; and 10 4. This action is closed. 11 | DATED: June 24, 2021. 12 13 ( ti / ¢ q_/ 4 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28