(PC) Aleem v. Lizarraga

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FAROOQ ABDUL ALEEM, No. 2:18-cv-1210 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER J. LIZARRAGA, et al., 15 Defendants.

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

20 On April 7, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 32.) Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

24 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 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court ///// . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 7, 2020 (ECF No 32), are adopted in full; 6 2. The due process claims and claim against defendant Weiss for prescribing acetaminophen with codeine instead of morphine are dismissed without leave to amend and the case will proceed on the remaining claims against defendants Weiss and Yllera, as outlined in the April 7, 2020 screening order; and 10 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings.

12 DATED: August 20, 2020.