Machado v. Lizarraga

Filing 74

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 11/2/2020 ADOPTING IN FULL 73 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 66 Request for Judicial Notice, as set forth in the Findings and Recommendations; and GRANTING 59 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Tupolo, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JUANITA MACHADO,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,

No. 2:17-cv-02430-TLN-CKD
ORDER

v.
J.A. LIZARRAGA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Juanita Machado (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

18

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

19

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On July 09, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

21

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

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 73.) The

23

time for filing objections has expired, and no party has filed objections to the findings and

24

recommendations.

25

Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v.

26

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

27

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

28

1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

1
2

Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings
and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed July 09, 2020 (ECF No. 73), are adopted in

5
6
7

full;
2. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 66) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part as set forth in the Findings and Recommendations;

8

3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 59) is GRANTED; and

9

4. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice; and

10

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: November 2, 2020

13
14
15

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2