(PS) Gigena v. State of California ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GABRIEL GIGENA, No. 2:21-cv-00082-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Gabriel Gigena (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in the instant action. The matter 18 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 19 On April 8, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 20 were served on the Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff filed objections 22 on April 13, 2021, and they were considered by the undersigned. (ECF No. 6.) 23 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 24 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 25 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 26 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 27 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 28 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 1 | reviewed denovo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 2 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 3 | supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 8, 2021 (ECF No. 5), are ADOPTED 6 | FULL; 7 2. This action is DISMISSED as frivolous; and 8 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 9 IT ISSO ORDERED. /) " DATED: May 20, 2021 “ l of □□ 2 Troy L. Nunley ] United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28