(PC) Pratt v. Sacramento Protection Services ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EUGENE PRATT, JR., No. 2:22-cv-2117-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO PROTECTION SERVICES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On June 30, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 22 were served on Plaintiff, and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 23 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On August 01, 2023, 24 Plaintiff was granted a sixty-day extension of time to file objections. That deadline has passed, 25 and Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 26 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 27 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 28 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 1 | the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 2 | the magistrate judge’s analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 30, 2023 (ECF No. 14) are ADOPTED IN 5 FULL; 6 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 8 || Date: November 1, 2023 9 10 /) /) ul “ ! Lu 12 Troy L. Nunley ] 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28