(PC) Hampton v. Austin

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GARY G. HAMPTON, JR., No. 2:20-CV-1001-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER LORI W. AUSTIN, 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 February 15, 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 February 15, 2022, are adopted in | full; 6 2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiffs original complaint against || Defendant Welch only on Plaintiffs claim that, despite Plaintiffs suicidal ideation, Defendant | Welch “did nothing”; 9 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and 10 4. The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further | pre-trial proceedings.

12 | DATED: May 23, 2022.

14 ee 3 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE