(PC) Hamilton v. Bosenko ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN HAMILTON, No. 2:16-cv-00968-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 TOM BOSENKO, et. Al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. 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 December 7, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff did 23 not file 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). Having reviewed 27 the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 28 the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 7, 2021, (ECF No. 15), are adopted 3 | in full; and 4 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 5 | DATED: January 24, 2022 ° /) 7 | | Say | Thole 9 Troy L. Nunley ] United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28