(PC) Watts v. Thompson ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 QUINTON JOEY WATTS, No. 2:22-cv-2234-KJM-KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JEFFREY A. THOMPSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 April 24, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On May 11, 2013, plaintiff was re- 23 served at his most current address. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and 24 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 that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 24, 2023, are adopted in full; 5 2. Defendants Thompson and Poyner are dismissed with prejudice; 6 3. Plaintiff's habeas claims are dismissed without prejudice; and 7 4. This action is dismissed without prejudice. 8 | DATED: July 21, 2023. 9 10 "1 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28