(PC) Whiteman v. Shasta County Jail ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORRY WHITEMAN, No. 2:24-cv-00166 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SHASTA COUNTY JAIL, 15 Defendant. 16 17 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. 18 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On July 10, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 20 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 14. 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 (ECF No. 14) are adopted in full. 3 2. The first amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim for the reasons set 4 | forth in the April 5, 2024 Screening Order. (ECF No. 12.) See E.D. Cal. L-.R. 110; Fed R. Civ. P. 5 || 41(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 7 || DATED: September 9, 2024. 10 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28