(PC) Belmonte v. Smith ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL BELMONTE, No. 2:19-cv-00269 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 A. SMITH, 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 April 8, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff has not filed 23 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, with one correction. Page 4, line 22 appears 3 || to contain a typographical error that may prove confusing if left uncorrected. The court adopts 4 | the F&Rs after adding the word “not” in that line: “Because there is no federal constitutional right 5 || to a grievance process, the alleged mishandling or erroneous denial of an inmate appeal does not 6 || itself violate due process.” See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates 7 || lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.”). 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The findings and recommendations issued April 8, 2021 (ECF No. 14) are ADOPTED 10 | in full; 11 2. This case shall proceed only on plaintiff's claim that defendant M. Carter violated his 12 || due process right to an impartial hearing officer at the RVR hearing on July 13, 2018; 13 3. All other claims are DISMISSED without leave to amend; 14 4. All defendants other than M. Carter are TERMINATED without service; and 15 5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 16 || proceedings. 17 | DATED: July 1, 2021. 18 19 50 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28