(PC) Goodson v. Colusa County Superior Courts ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY GOODSON, No. 2:20-cv-0679-KJM-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COLUSA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURTS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking 19 relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On May 19, 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.1 25 ///// 26 1 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 27 recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 28 of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 2 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 3 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 4 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 5 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 6 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 19, 2020, are adopted in full; and 9 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. 10 DATED: July 17, 2020. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28