(PC) Bullard v. Sacramento Police Department ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONDELL DONTA BULLARD, No. 2:22-cv-001914 KJM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 20 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 4, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 22 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 23 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the 24 findings and recommendations. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 27 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 1 | ....°). 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 January 4, 2023, are adopted in full; and 5 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 6 || DATED: February 8, 2023. 7 8 ( ti / ¢ q_/ 9 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28