(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 On December 21, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. That period has passed, plaintiff has not objected to the findings and recommendations.

21 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.

27 ///// ///// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 21, 2020 (ECF No. 60) are adopted | in full; 4 2. Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 57) is denied; and 5 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial || proceedings.

7 || DATED: March 30, 2021.

9 ( ti / ¢ q_/ 10 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1]