(PC) Nitkin v. Radu et al

Filing 20

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 02/02/24 ADOPTING 15 Findings and Recommendations in full and DENYING 14 Request for Injunction, without prejudice. This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Licea Chavez, V)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSHUA THOMAS NITKIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 2:23-cv-01837-TLN-JDP

v.

ORDER

D. RADU,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 pursuant to

19

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

20

On December 12, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

21

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

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. The time to file objections

23

has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed objections.
The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

24
25

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

26

See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). Having reviewed the file, the Court

27

finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

28

///
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 12, 2023 (ECF No. 15) are

3

ADOPTED IN FULL;

4

2. Plaintiff’s request for injunction (ECF No. 14) is DENIED without prejudice; and

5

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

6

proceedings.

7

Date: February 2, 2024

8
9
10
11

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

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