(PC)Rogers v. Matteson

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/17/2023 ADOPTING 14 Findings and Recommendations in full. All claims other than a claim arising under the First Amendment against defendant Ray Smith as detailed in claim I of plaintiff's amended complaint are DISMISSED. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings.(Perdue, C.)

Case 2:22-cv-00403-KJM-CKD Document 19 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MAURICE DI AUNDRA ROGERS,

12

No. 2:22-cv-0403 KJM CKD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

ORDER

14

GISELLE MATTESON, 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 November 9, 2022 the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

20
21

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

22

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to

23

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

24
25

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

26

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

27

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

28

/////
1

Case 2:22-cv-00403-KJM-CKD Document 19 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2
1

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

2

supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 9, 2022, are adopted in full;

5

2. All claims other than a claim arising under the First Amendment against defendant Ray

6
7

Smith as detailed in claim I of plaintiff's amended complaint are dismissed; and
3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial

8

proceedings.

9

DATED: January 17, 2023.

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