(PC) Fisher v. Graham ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GARY FRANCIS FISHER, No. 2:20-cv-00847 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SCOTT NICHOLAS GRAHAM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 20, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff has not filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 25 recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to 26 keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 27 of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 28 ///// ] 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 || denovo. 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 January 20, 2021 (ECF No. 8), are adopted in 9 full; and 10 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. 11 | DATED: July 5, 2021. 12 13 ee 4 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28