(PC) Ray v. Petras ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY D. RAY, No. 2:19-cv-01865-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ONGEN PETRA, 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 February 2, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 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. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 2, 2022, are adopted in full; 3 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 59, is granted; 4 3. Plaintiffs claims against defendants Bick and McAllister are dismissed without 5 || prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; 6 4. Judgment is entered in favor of defendant Petras and against plaintiff; and 7 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 8 | DATED: March 18, 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