(PC) Singh v. Sacramento County Sheriff ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GURPREET SINGH, No. 2:23-cv-0237 KJM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has 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 July 26, 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. On August 11, 2023, plaintiff was 24 granted sixty days in which to file objections and his amended complaint. Sixty days have 25 passed, and plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations or filed an 26 amended complaint. 27 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 28 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 1 || denovo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 2 || by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 3 || ....”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 4 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 26, 2023, are adopted in full; and 7 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 8 | DATED: November 14, 2023. 9 10 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28