(PC) Taylor v. Solano County Conflict Defenders Office ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON LA’SHAUN TAYLOR, No. 2:20-CV-0356-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SOLANO COUNTY CONFLICT DEFENDERS OFFICE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 20 Eastern District of California local rules. 21 On June 2, 2020, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which 22 were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within 23 the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 25 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 26 reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations 27 of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 28 ///// 1 court . . . .”). 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 June 2, 2020, are adopted in full; 5 2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and 6 failure to comply with court rules and orders; and 7 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 8 DATED: July 8, 2020. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28