(PC) Hall v. Macomber

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DEMAGEO HALL, No. 2:20-cv-1701 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER JEFF MACOMBER, 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 January 26, 2021, 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. Plaintiff has not 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 magistrate judge’s January 26, 2021 findings and recommendations are adopted in full; 6 2. All claims other than claims for excessive force, failure to protect, and unreasonable search against defendants Mohr, Ortega, Smith, and Valine be dismissed; and 8 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

9 DATED: March 23, 2021.