(PS) Cobb v. State of California ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONALD L. COBB, No. 2:23-cv-00410 KJM AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 18 United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 19 On April 24, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 20 served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations 21 were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the 22 findings and recommendations but did file a "notice regarding jurisdiction.” ECF No. 5. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 25 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. In plaintiff’s “notice,” he claims he did not 1 | consent to the magistrate judge’s assignment on this case, and therefore contends the magistrate 2 || judge did not have jurisdiction. However, plaintiff's consent was not needed here. Under Local 3 || Rule 302(c)(21), the magistrate judge was properly assigned to this case for pretrial purposes 4 || because plaintiff proceeds in propria persona (without counsel). Moreover, this court has 5 || thoroughly reviewed the file and concludes plaintiff's complaint is time-barred, as explained by 6 || the findings and recommendations. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 24, 2023, are adopted in full; 9 2. All claims against all defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice; and 10 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 11 | DATED: June 30, 2023. 13 4 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28