(PS) Tanksley v. Inman ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY, No. 2:20-cv-1815 KJM DB PS 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER 15 JASON INMAN, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 On April 5, 2021, the magistrate judge filed 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 thirty days after service of the findings and 23 recommendations. The thirty-day period has expired, and plaintiff has not filed any objections to 24 the findings and recommendations. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 27 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 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 April 5, 2021 (ECF No. 3) are adopted in full; 5 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice; and 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this file. 7 || DATED: July 6, 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