Warfield v. California Attorney Generals Office et al

Filing 7

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/29/2019 ADOPTING in FULL 6 Findings and Recommendations. This action is DISMISSED as frivolous, without leave to amend. CASE CLOSED (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRODERICK JAMES WARFIELD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-02544-TLN-AC

v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S
OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a civil detainee at Napa State Hospital who, while detained in the Solano

18
19

County Stanton Correctional Facility and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking

20

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

21

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 28, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

22
23

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

24

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff has

25

not filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.
Although it appears from the file that Plaintiff’s copy of the Findings and

26
27

Recommendations was returned, Plaintiff was properly served. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to

28

///
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal

7

standards, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and

8

by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 28, 2019 (ECF No. 6), are adopted
in full; and
2. This action is DISMISSED as frivolous, without leave to amend. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1); see Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 29, 2019

16
17
18
19

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2