(PC) Driver v. Approved Computer Tablet Program ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BILLY DRIVER, JR., No. 2:21-cv-0761 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 APPROVED COMPUTER TABLET PROGRAM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action under to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 21, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff has not filed 23 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 January 21, 2022, are adopted in full; 5 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice; and 6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 7 || DATED: March 24, 2022. 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