(PC) Farha v. Foss

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MAUWAI FARHA, No. 2:20-cv-02206-KJM-KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER T. FOSS, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 April 21, 2023, 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 fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 21, 2023, are adopted in full; and 5 2. Plaintiff's ADA claim, state law claims, and remaining putative claims as discussed in || the findings and recommendations are dismissed without prejudice.!

7 || DATED: July 11, 2023.

10 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] Q_—_ x Soda ' Pursuant to the April 24, 2023 order, this case proceeds on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment | claims against defendants T. Foss, H. Wagner, M. Johnson, and J. Frailey. (ECF No. 56.)