(PC) Kelly v. Bandaru

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMES CARL KELLY, Case No. 2:24-cv-01161-DJC-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER BANDARU, 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20 On April 30, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein 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. The Court observes that this procedure is sufficient to constitute notice to the Plaintiff of the potential disqualification under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) as required by Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1120. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

27 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.

6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations, ECF No. 7, are adopted in full; and 8 2. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is denied and | plaintiff is directed to tender the filing fee within thirty days of this order.

10 3. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for all further pretrial | proceedings.

13 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _June 26, 2024 “Dane A Ch brett Hon. Daniel alabretta 1s UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE