(PC) Cortijo v. St. Andre ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DEANGELO CORTIJO, No. 2:23-cv-00454 KJM DB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 ST. ANDRE, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants denied him the ability to make phone calls, retaliated 18 against him, and discriminated against him in violation of his constitutional rights. The matter 19 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 20 Local Rule 302. 21 On December 5, 2023, 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-one days. Plaintiff has not filed objections 24 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 December 5, 2024, are adopted in full; 5 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice; and 6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 7 || DATED: February 5, 2024. 8 9 10 CHIEF STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 |} /cort0454.800 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28