(PC) Taylor v. Amador County Public 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. 2:19-CV-2242-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 AMADOR COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 20 Eastern District of California local rules. 21 On June 4, 2020 and July 22, 2020, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 22 recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties 23 may file objections within the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and 24 recommendations have been filed. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 26 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 27 reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations 28 of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 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 4, 2020 and July 22, 2020, 5 are adopted in full; 6 2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relieve is denied; 7 3. Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice; and 8 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case file. 9 DATED: September 28, 2020. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28