(PC) Gonzalez v. Tancreto ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIO AMADOR GONZALEZ, No. 2:20-cv-2287 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 TANCRETO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 22, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. See ECF No. 13. Plaintiff has not 23 filed objections to 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 issued February 22, 2021 (ECF No. 13), are 5 | ADOPTED in full; 6 2. Plaintiffs motion to stay these proceedings (ECF No. 12) is DENIED; 7 3. This case is SUMMARILY DISMISSED for failure to exhaust. See Jones v. Bock, 549 8 | US. 199, 214-15 (2007); and 9 4. The clerk of court is directed to close this case. 10 | DATED: April 29, 2021. 1] 12 ( ti / ¢ q_/ B CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28