(PC) Perryman v. Warden

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID PERRYMAN, No. 2:21-cv-00421-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER WARDEN, 15 Defendant.

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 21, 2022, 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 findings and recommendations filed January 21, 2022, are adopted in full; 5 2. Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction, ECF Nos. 15 & 18, are denied; and 6 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial || proceedings.

8 | DATED: March 7, 2022.

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