(PC) Houston v. Ngai

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM HOUSTON, No. 2:20-cv-1051 KJM DB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER NGAI, et al., 14 Defendants.

16 Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action 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.

19 On February 4, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendation, 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 fourteen days. (ECF No. 40.) Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

23 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.

2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 4, 2022, are adopted in full; 4 2. Plaintiff’s motion for stay and settlement conference is denied; and 5 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 6 proceedings.

7 DATED: April 11, 2022.