(PC) Miller v. Thomas ( 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-2170 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. THOMAS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. Plaintiff claims he has received inadequate medical treatment in violation of his rights 19 under the Eighth Amendment. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 20 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 18, 2022, 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 twenty days. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff has not filed 24 objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 27 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 28 by the 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 2 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 18, 2022, are adopted in full; 5 2. This action is dismissed without leave to amend; and 6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 7 || DATED: July 11, 2022 8 9 ( ti / ¢ q_/ 10 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28