(PC) Green v. Batchelor

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LIFALFA GREEN, No. 2:19-cv-00538-TLN-EFB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER MARY BATCHELOR, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Lifalfa Green (“Plaintiff”), 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 April 13, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 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. 17.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the findings and recommendations.

24 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. 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 School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

28 /// 1 Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 13, 2020 (ECF No. 17), are adopted in full; 6 2. This action will proceed on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Batchelor; and 8 3. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Myers, Difuntorum, Bayoneta, August, and Moreno are DISMISSED without prejudice.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 DATED: June 15, 2020