(PC) Mills v. Deems ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODNEY JAMES MILLS, No. 2:22-cv-01738-TLN-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MICHAEL R. DEEMS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 4, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to 23 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 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 28 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 1 | the record and by the proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 4, 2023, ARE ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. This action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with Court 5 | orders, and failure to state a claim, for the reasons set forth in the December 2, 2022 order; and 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 7 | Date: June 12, 2023 8 /) ? “ bn 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28