(PC) Dawson v. Lynch

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CARLOS MANWELL DAWSON, No. 2:21-cv-0510 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER JEFF LYNCH, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 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 August 19, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff received several extensions of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF Nos. 26, 29, 30), but has not done so. The day after the findings and recommendations were issued, plaintiff filed another motion for temporary restraining order reiterating his claims. ECF No. 20.

26 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.

4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 19, 2022 (ECF No. 22), are adopted | in full; 7 2. Plaintiffs motions for a temporary restraining order (ECF Nos. 13, 18, 19, 20) are || DENIED; and 9 3. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings.

10 | DATED: February 21, 2023.

12 ee 3 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE