(PC) Diaz v. Hurley

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MIGUEL ENRIQUE DIAZ, No. 2:19-cv-1241 KJM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ASSOCIATE WARDEN HURLEY, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20 On May 24, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. On June 17, 2021, and August 6, 2021, plaintiff was granted thirty-day extensions of time to file objections. (ECF Nos. 67, 70.) On October 25, 2021, plaintiff was granted one final sixty-day extension of time to file objections, and warned that no further extensions of time would be granted for any reason.

26 ///// ///// ///// || (ECF No. 74.) Sixty days have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings || and recommendations.!

3 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.

9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 24, 2021, are adopted in full; 11 2. Plaintiffs March 22, 2021 motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 51) is denied; and 12 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial || proceedings.

14 | DATED: May 23, 2022.

15 /\ (] 16 AT Wal X ¢ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE || | Plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint. By separate order, the magistrate judge denied plaintiff's November 17, 2021 request, and recommended that this action be dismissed || based on plaintiff's failure to file a second amended complaint despite being granted multiple extensions of time to do so. (ECF No. 76.) On January 24, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for | extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 77.) As the || magistrate judge found in the findings and recommendations, plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief is unrelated to the claims on which this action is currently proceedings and, therefore, this || court does not have authority to issue the requested injunctive relief. See ECF No. 60 at 6 (quoting Pacific Radiation Oncology v. Queen’s Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. | 2015)).