1

2

3

4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY BARRETT, Case No. 1:20-cv-1802 JLT EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT 14 A. CIOLLI, et al., TO CLOSE THE CASE 15 Defendants. (Docs. 68, 74) 16 17 Anthony Barrett is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents,

(1971). (Doc. 1, 35.) Defendants Ciolli, Scott, Rodriguez, Cobb, and Leger filed a motion to 20 dismiss Plaintiff’s remaining Bivens claims1 following Egbert v. Boule,

(2022). 21 (Doc. 68.) 22 The assigned magistrate judge entered Findings and Recommendations, recommending 23 that Defendants’ motion be granted and the claims against the “Doe” defendants likewise be 24 dismissed. (Doc. 74.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties and 25 informed them that any objections must be filed within 21 days. (Id. at 12.) The Court also 26 informed them that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of

27 1 The Court previously granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. (Doc. 65.) The remaining claims include deprivation of property without due process against Ciolli, 28 Scott, Rodriguez, and Cobbs; and or unconstitutional conditions of confinement against A. Leger. (Id. at 3.) 1 | rights on appeal.” (/d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014), Baxter 2 | v. Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1991).) To date, no objections have been filed and the 3 | time to do so has passed. 4 According to

(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de 5 || novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court finds the findings and 6 || recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 19, 2023 (Doc. 74) are g ADOPTED IN FULL. 9 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. 10 3. Plaintiffs Fifth Amendment deprivation of property claims against Defendants 11 Ciolli, Scott, Rodriguez, Cobb, and Doe Defendants | through 5 are DISMISSED. 12 4. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims against 13 Defendant Leger and Doe Defendants 6 through 10 are DISMISSED. 14 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 7 | Dated: _August 20, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28