Brown v. Baughman

Filing 29

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/19/2020 ADOPTING 27 Findings and Recommendations in full and DISMISSING plaintiff's 26 First Amended Complaint without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim. CASE CLOSED. (York, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM BROWN,

12

No. 2:17-cv-1623-KJM-EFB P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER

BAUGHMAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

17
18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided

19

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 11, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

20
21

were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings

22

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to

23

the findings and recommendations.1
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,

24
25

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

26

1

27
28

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and recommendations was
returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court
apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents
at the record address of the party is fully effective.
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 11, 2020, are adopted in full;

7

2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 26) is DISMISSED without leave to

8

amend for failure to state a cognizable claim; and

9

3. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

10

DATED: March 19, 2020.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2