(PC) Baker v. Lynch ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY RAY BAKER, No. 2:19-cv-2617-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. HOWARD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District 19 of California local rules. 20 On May 26, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied. ECF No. 35. The findings and 22 recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that the parties may file 23 objections within the time specified therein. Id. No party has filed objections to the findings and 24 recommendations. 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 28 ///// 1 | 1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to 2 || be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed on May 26, 2021 (ECF No. 35) are 5 || adopted in full. 6 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25) is DENIED. 7 3. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further 8 | pretrial proceedings. 9 | DATED: July 8, 2021. 10 1 l tied ¢ is CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28