Birrell, et al., v. Fox, et al.,

Filing 69

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/17/23 ADOPTING in full 60 the findings and recommendations. Plaintiffs Loughmiller, Preyer and Acevedo are DISMISSED. (Kastilahn, A)

Case 2:16-cv-01818-KJM-CKD Document 69 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID WESLEY BIRRELL, et al.,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-1818 KJM CKD P

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

ROBERT W. FOX, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiffs, state prisoners proceeding pro se and individually, have filed this civil rights

18

action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

19

Magistrate Judge as provided by28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On August 4, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

21

recommending that plaintiffs Loughmiller, Preyer and Acevedo be dismissed. ECF No. 60. The

22

findings and recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice to all parties that

23

any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No

24

objections were filed.

25

The court notes that copies of the August 4, 2022, findings and recommendations served

26

upon plaintiffs Acevedo and Loughmiller were returned by the U.S. Postal Service. It is a

27

plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of their current address at all times. Pursuant

28

to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.
1

Case 2:16-cv-01818-KJM-CKD Document 69 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2
1

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,

2

602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed

3

de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law

4

by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court

5

. . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

6

supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 4, 2022 (ECF No. 60) are adopted in

9
10
11

full; and
2. Plaintiffs Loughmiller, Preyer and Acevedo are dismissed.
DATED: January 17, 2023.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2