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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?