(PC) Carroll v. State of California ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TREMAYNE CARROLL, No. 2:19-cv-02324-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Tremayne Carroll (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 24, 2020, 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 fourteen days. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff submitted 23 objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 13.) 24 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 25 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 26 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 27 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 28 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 1 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 2 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 3 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 4 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 5 judge’s analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed March 24, 2020 (ECF No. 12), are adopted 8 in full; and 9 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 DATED: May 27, 2020 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28