(PC) Howard v. Unknown ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 EARLE S. HOWARD, No. 2:23-cv-01033 KJM SCR P 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER 15 UNKNOWN, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 20 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 21 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On July 15, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 23 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 24 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the 25 findings and recommendations. 26 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 27 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 28 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 1 | by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 2 | ....”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 3 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 5 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 13) are adopted in full. 6 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 8 | DATED: September 9, 2024. 9 10 "1 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28