(PC) Arocha v. Diaz ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUDY AROCHA, No. 2:22-cv-0638 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RALPH M. DIAZ, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, is a California prisoner proceeding with a civil action. The matter was referred 18 to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On February 6, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 21 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations. Rather, defendant has filed a notice of 23 nonopposition to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 15. 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: 4 1. Plaintiffs motion for remand (ECF No. 5) is granted; 5 2. This action is remanded to the Superior Court of Sacramento County; and 6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 7 || DATED: March 29, 2023. 8 9 ( ti / ¢ q_/ 10 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28