(PC) Walker v. Nelson ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 ELMER EUGENE WALKER, No. 2:22-cv-01327 KJM DB P 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER 15 JENNA NELSON, et al., 16 Defendants. 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 January 12, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 22 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff has not 24 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 27 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 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: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 12, 2023 (ECF No. 11), are adopted 5 | in full; 6 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauper (ECF No. 4) is denied; 7 3. Within thirty days of this order, plaintiff shall pay the $402 filing fee for this action. 8 | Failure to comply with court orders will result in an order that this case be dismissed; and 9 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 10 || proceedings. 11 | DATED: March 29, 2023. 13 14 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28