(PC) Johnson v. Arnold ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHANIEL JOHNSON, No. 2:17-cv-0344 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 E. ARNOLD, 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 as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 4, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 50. Neither party has 23 filed objections 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 August 29, 2022 (ECF No. 50), are adopted in 5 | full; 6 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 41) is GRANTED; and 7 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 8 | DATED: October 11, 2022. 9 10 ( ti / ¢ q_/ "1 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28