(PC) Thomas v. Walters

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CLIFFORD BRENT THOMAS, No. 2:18-CV-1711-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER J. WALTERS, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of California local rules.

20 On January 10, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.

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 10, 2022, are adopted in | full; 6 2. Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment, ECF No. 45, is granted; 7 3. Defendants Walters, Santisteban, Szmanski, English, Rushing, Saeturn, || Tran, Miller, Midanda, Tong, and De Jesus are dismissed; 9 4. Defendant Price is dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect timely || service of process; 11 5. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff's first amended complaint as to his | claims against Defendants Holmes, Halloran, and Barba; and 13 6. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further | pretrial proceeds.

15 || DATED: March 9, 2022.

13 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE