(PC)Anderson v. Sanborn ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KELVIN RAY ANDERSON, No. 2:21-cv-0561-KJM-EFB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 K.T. SANBORN, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 18 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On December 7, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 21 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to 22 the findings and recommendations. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 24 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 25 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 26 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 27 Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 28 the record and by the proper analysis. ] The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 || supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 3 || ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 7, 2021, are adopted in full; 5 2. Plaintiff's claims against defendants Deters and De Jesus are dismissed without 6 prejudice; and 7 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 8 proceedings. 9 | DATED: January 12, 2022. 10 il ( tied ¢ q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28