(PC) Barnett v. Unknown ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAURICE BARNETT, et al., No. 2:22-cv-00256-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNKNOWN, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiffs, state prisoners proceeding pro se, have filed this civil rights action seeking 18 relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 1, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on Plaintiffs and which contained notice to Plaintiffs that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiffs 23 have not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 28 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 1 | the record and by the proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed June 1, 2022, (ECF No. 16), are adopted in 4 | full; and 5 2. This case is closed for failure to file a complaint and for failure to pay the filing fee. 6 | DATED: July 22, 2022 7 / “ eck ° Troy L. Nublep ] 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28