(PC) Quinones v. St. Andre

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STEVEN QUINONES, No. 2:22-cv-00833-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ROB ST. ANDRE, 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 April 3, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and contained notice of the time period for the parties to file objections. No objections have been filed.

23 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. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 3, 2023, are adopted in full.

3 2. This action proceeds on Plaintiffs original complaint as to Plaintiffs 4 Eighth Amendment medical care claim against Defendants Gray and Doe I, 5 to the extent Doe I is properly identified as required by federal law.

6 3. All other claims are dismissed.

7 4. Fox, St. Andre, and Doe II are dismissed as defendants to this action.

8 5. The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further 9 pre-trial proceedings.

10 | DATED: July 24, 2023.

1] 12 eee B CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE