(PC) Palacios v. Smith

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JORGE PALACIOS, No. 2:17-cv-02500-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER KEVIN SMITH, et al., 15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiff Jorge Palacios, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20 On November 30, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 20.) On December 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed an untitled document that the Court construes as objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 23.)

25 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

4 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 30, 2018 (ECF No. 20), are adopted in full; 9 2. Plaintiff’s requests for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 15–18) are DENIED.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated: October 4, 2019