Stephen v. Montejo et al

Filing 30

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/22/19 ADOPTING the findings and recommendations filed 2/26/19 (ECF No. 17 ) in full; DISMISSING Plaintiff's claims against defendants Rading, Sanders, Austin, Fox; and Lozano from this action without leave to amend; and REFERRING this case back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JIMMIE STEPHEN,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:18-cv-1796 KJM DB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

E. MONTEJO,
Defendant.

15
16

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

17

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

18

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

19

On February 26, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

20

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

21

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed a document stating

22

that he has no objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 19.)

23

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by

28

the record and by the proper analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 26, 2019 (ECF No. 17) are adopted

3
4
5
6

in full;
2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Rading, Sanders, Austin, Fox; and Lozano are
dismissed from this action without leave to amend; and
3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial

7

proceedings.

8

DATED: April 22, 2019.

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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