(PC) Foster v. State of CA Dept. of Developmental Services ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARTIN LEE FOSTER, No. 2:21-cv-01287-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL 15 SERVICES, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff, a county inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 20 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On November 16, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 22 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to 24 the findings and recommendations. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 26 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 27 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 28 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 supported by 2 || the record and by the proper analysis 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 16, 2021, are adopted in full; 5 2. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without leave to amend; and, 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 7 || DATED: May 23, 2022. 8 9 l ti / ¢ q_/ 10 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28