(PS) Warfield v. Solano County Public Defenders Offices ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRODERICK J. WARFIELD, No. 2:22-cv-00782-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SOLANO COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On January 26, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 19 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 20 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff filed 21 objections on February 2, 2023 and February 8, 2023, and both were considered by the Court. 22 (ECF Nos. 33, 36.) 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. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed January 26, 2023, (ECF No. 31) 3 | are adopted; 4 2. Plaintiffs Motions for Injunctive Relief, (ECF Nos. 3 & 20), are DENIED; 5 3. The operative Complaint, (ECF No. 30), is DISMISSED without leave to amend; 6 4. Plaintiff's Motions for Information and to File Documents Electronically, (ECF Nos. 6, 7 | 25), are DENIED as moot; and 8 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 9 10 | DATED: February 15, 2023 " /) 12 \ | /] 3 A i Vm 14 Troy L. Nunley ] United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28