(PC)Miller v. Bordewick ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELIJAH LEE MILLER, No. 2:21-cv-02009-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. BORDEWICK, 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 pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 24, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff 23 was re-served with the findings and recommendations to his current address on March 31, 2022. 24 Plaintiff did not file objections to 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 28 the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 1 | the magistrate judge’s analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed March 24, 2022, (ECF No. 13), are adopted 4 } in full; and 5 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 | 41(b). DATED: June 1, 2022 7 /) ° “ eb ° Toy L. Nuhlep ] 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28