(PC) Birrell v. Fox

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID WESLEY BIRRELL, et al., No. 2:16-cv-1818 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER ROBERT W. FOX, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Jeffrey Scott Sargent filed this civil rights action with other plaintiffs 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 September 14, 2022 and October 11, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, ECF Nos. 63 and 65, 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. No objections 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. Review of the record shows that with entry of || this order, all plaintiffs have been dismissed from this action. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court | will be directed to enter judgment and close this case.

5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 14, 2022, ECF No. 63, are adopted | in full; 8 2. Plaintiff Birrell is dismissed; 9 3. The findings and recommendations filed October 11, 2022, ECF No. 65, are adopted in | full; 11 4. Plaintiff Sargent is dismissed; and 12 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.

13 | DATED: January 17, 2023.

6 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE