Taylor v. Arnold

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/7/2020 ADOPTING 43 Findings and Recommendations in full, GRANTING 39 Motion to Dismiss. CASE CLOSED. (Coll, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT LEE TAYLOR,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-2014 KJM CKD P

v.

ORDER

ERIC ARNOLD, 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 December 19, 2019, the magistrate judge assigned to this case filed findings and

20
21

recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that

22

any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days.

23

Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and

24
25

recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to

26

keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service

27

of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

28

/////
1

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 December 19, 2019, are adopted in full;

9

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No 39) is granted; and

10

3. This case is closed.

11

DATED: September 7, 2020.

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