(PC)Weisner v. Nobert ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANKIE WEISNER, No. 2:21-cv-01957-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ALLISON NOBERT, 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 1, 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. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the 23 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 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 1 | supported by the record and by the proper analysis. While in his complaint, plaintiff states he 2 || does not consent to the magistrate judge “presiding over this case” and accuses the magistrate 3 || judge of conspiring with defendants “to dismiss the complaint and prevent relief,” First Am. 4 | Compl. (FAC) at 9, ECF No. 10, by Local Rule 302(c)(21) magistrate judges initially handle all 5 || actions initiated by pro se plaintiffs, and here given that the parties have not all consented this 6 || court retains the authority to ultimately decide the disposition of this matter. Moreover, plaintiff 7 || has offered no facts supporting his allegation of conspiracy. See FAC; Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 8 || Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 10 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 1, 2023, are adopted in full; 11 2. Plaintiffs first amended complaint is dismissed without further leave to amend; and 12 3. The Clerk of Court close this case. 13 | DATED: April 27, 2023. 14 6 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28