(PS) Tanksley v. Baker ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY, No. 2:21-cv-1977 KJM DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CHRISTOPHER BAKER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 19 On October 19, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 21 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and 22 recommendations. The time for filing objections has expired, and plaintiff has not filed any 23 objections to the 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 ///// 1 | ....°). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 19, 2022 (ECF No. 4) are adopted in 5 | full; 6 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice; and 7 3. This clerk of court is directed to close this case. 8 DATED: January 17, 2023. 9 10 l cae MWurl ¢ g_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28