(PC) Head v. County of Sacramento ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES HEAD, No. 2:19-cv-01663-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Charles Head (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights 18 action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On December 28, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 50.) Neither 23 party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 27 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed December 28, 2020 (ECF No. 50), are 3 | ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. The following claims raised in the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 39) are 5 | DISMISSED: (1) alleged violation of the Wiretap Act by Defendants Sacramento County and 6 | Sacramento County Jail; and (2) alleged violation of the First and Fourth Amendments by 7 | Defendants Ellen Endrizzi and Kenneth Shelton. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 | DATED: March 19, 2021 nN /) 0 ) WV Pores Troy L. Nunley> . } United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28