(PC) Johnson v. Solano County Sheriffs Department ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALFRED NORMAN JOHNSON, III, No. 2:19-cv-1100-KJM-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 19 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On April 30, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 22 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 23 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the 24 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 30, 2020, are adopted in full; 5 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for the reasons set forth in the March 16, 6 2020 screening order (ECF No. 6); and 7 3. The clerk of court close this case. 8 DATED: July 10, 2020. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28