(PC) Taylor v. Barth ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL DOUGLAS TAYLOR, No. 2:23-cv-1736 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SHAWN BARTH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On October 23, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 21 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff has not filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 25 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 23, 2023 (ECF No. 6), are adopted in 3 | full; 4 2. This matter is remanded to the San Joaquin County Superior Court; and 5 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a certified copy of the order to remand to the 6 || clerk of the San Joaquin County Superior Court and close this case. 7 || DATED: February 14, 2024. 10 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28