Aleem v. Lizarraga et al

Filing 68

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/30/2021 ADOPTING the findings and recommendations filed 12/21/2020 (ECF No. 60 ) in full; DENYING Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 57 ); and REFERRING this matter back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FAROOQ ABDUL ALEEM,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2: 18-cv-1210 KJM CKD P

v.

ORDER

J. LIZARRAGA, et al.

15

Defendants.

16
On December 21, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

17
18

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

19

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. That period has passed, plaintiff has

20

not objected to the findings and recommendations.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,

21
22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 21, 2020 (ECF No. 60) are adopted

3

in full;

4

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 57) is denied; and

5

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

6

proceedings.

7

DATED: March 30, 2021.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2