(PC) Rojas v. County of Sacramento ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT EUGENE ROJAS, No. 2:21-cv-02280 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. Plaintiff claims defendants have violated his rights in connection with his criminal action 19 in state court as well as the conditions of his confinement. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On April 4, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 22 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 23 recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. (ECF No. 17.) 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 April 4, 2023, are adopted in full; 5 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice; and 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 7 || DATED: May 25, 2023. 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