Bailey v. California Army National Guard
Filing
16
ORDER ADOPTING 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in Full signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/26/2018 DISMISSING this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. CASE CLOSED. (Fabillaran, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
STANLEY JEROME JACKSON
BAILEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 2:17-cv-01707-TLN-CKD
ORDER
CALIFORNIA ARMY NATIONAL
GUARD,
Defendant.
17
18
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
19
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
20
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21
On March 23, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein,
22
which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the
23
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff has
24
not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
25
The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602
26
F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
27
See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having
28
reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record
1
1
and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.
2
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
3
1. The findings and recommendations filed March 23, 2018 (ECF No. 15), are adopted in
4
5
6
full; and
2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See L.R. 110; Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b).
7
8
Dated: April 26, 2018
9
10
11
12
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
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?