(PC) Head v. County of Sacramento ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES HEAD, No. 2:19-cv-01663-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Charles Head (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil 18 action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 3, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 67.) Neither 23 party has filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 27 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed June 3, 2021 (ECF No. 67), are ADOPTED 3 | IN FULL; 4 2. Defendant Kenneth Shelton’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 54) is 5 | GRANTED as to Plaintiffs state law claim and DENIED as to Plaintiff's Wiretap Act claim; and 6 3. Within thirty (30) days of the date of electronic filing date of this Order, Defendant 7 | shall file a response to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 | DATED: July 30, 2021 0 12 Troy L. Nuhley> United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28