1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOBBY JOE MILLER, No. 2:21-cv-02132-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 AMADOR COUNTY JAIL, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 18

. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 19 Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On June 6, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within 22 the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 24 States,

(9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 25 reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey,

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations 26 of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 27 court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 6, 2023, are adopted in full; 3 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, ECF No. 29, is 4 | granted; 5 3. This action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution and 6 || failure to comply with court rules and orders; and 7 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 8 | DATED: August 10, 2023. 9 10 "1 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28