(PC) Jacks v. Simpson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY LEE JACKS, No. 2:22-cv-00693-WBS-KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 C/O SIMPSON, 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 April 28, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Although plaintiff filed a 23 declination of jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge and Request for Reassignment to 24 United States District Judge, neither party filed 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 28 reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 1 | and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 28, 2022, are ADOPTED in full; and 4 2. The above-entitled action is hereby summarily REMANDED to the Superior Court of 5 | California, in and for the County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-2021-00310294-CU-PO-GDS. 6 | Dated: June 3, 2022 7 / . ak. 8 WILLIAMB.SHUBB- ``~ 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 || jack0693.801 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28