Hernandez v. Thomas

Filing 57

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/27/19 ADOPTING 53 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full; DENYING Motion for Injunctive Relief 44 . This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ANTHONY HERNANDEZ,

11
12
13

No. 2:17-CV-1803-KJM-DMC-P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

THOMAS,

14

Defendant.

15
16

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42

17

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

18

Eastern District of California local rules.
On November 30, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations,

19
20

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections

21

within the time specified therein. No objections to these findings and recommendations have

22

been filed.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The findings and recommendations filed November 30, 2018, are adopted

4

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 44) is denied; and

5

3.

This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further

3

in full;

6

pretrial proceedings.

7

DATED: February 27, 2019.

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2