(PC) Maestas v. Sacramento County Jail ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RANDY V. MAESTAS, No. 2:21-cv-00665-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 9, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff has 23 not filed objections to 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 // 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 August 9, 2022 (ECF No. 25), are 5 | ADOPTED in full; 6 2. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24) is DISMISSED without leave to 7 | amend; and 8 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 9 | DATED: September 21, 2022 /) “ \/ Lu 11 — □□ _Z Troy L. Nunley» } 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28