(PC) Rojas v. County of Sacramento ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT EUGENE ROJAS, No. 2:22-cv-01748 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 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 March 3, 2023, the magistrate judge directed plaintiff to notify the court within 21 21 days whether he wants to proceed on three of the claims identified in that order or file a second 22 amended complaint to cure the deficiencies in the amended complaint. Order (Mar. 3, 2023), 23 ECF No. 9. The magistrate judge advised plaintiff that the action would proceed on the three 24 claims if he did not return the required form. Id. Plaintiff did not respond to the court’s order. 25 On April 7, 2023, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending the 26 action proceed on the three claims identified in the prior order and the dismissal of all other 27 claims. F. & R. (Apr. 7, 2023), ECF No. 10. In the same order, the magistrate judge directed 28 plaintiff to complete a Notice of Submission of Documents within 30 days. Id. ] Plaintiff, again, did not respond to the court’s order. On May 30, 2023, the magistrate 2 || judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on plaintiff and which contained 3 || notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within 4 | 14days. F. & R. (May 30, 2023), ECF No. 11. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings 5 || and recommendations. 6 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 7 || 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 8 | denovo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 9 || by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 10 | ....”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 11 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 30, 2023 are adopted in full; and 14 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. 15 In light of the above, the court finds the findings and recommendations filed April 7, 2023 16 | (ECF No. 10) are now moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 17 This order resolves ECF Nos. 10 and 11. 18 | DATED: July 24, 2023. 20 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28