(PC) Christopher v. State of California ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL CHRISTOPHER AND CARREA No. 2:21-cv-00748-KJM-JDP (PC) CHRISTOPHER, Jr., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER v. 14 STATE OF CALFORNIA, et al, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, have filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 16, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on plaintiffs, and which contained notice to plaintiffs that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiffs have not filed objections 23 to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 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 June 16, 2022, are adopted in full; 5 2. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, ECF No. 15, is dismissed without leave to amend for 6 || failure to state a cognizable claim; and 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 8 | DATED: September 15, 2022. 9 10 l ti / ¢ q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28