1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GHAUS MALIK, No. 2:24-cv-00692-TLN-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROBERT W. WRIGHT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding is proceeding in the above captioned action pro se. The matter was 18 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 19 On June 17, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 20 were served on all parties, and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 21 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff 22 filed objections to the findings and recommendations which the Court considered. (ECF No. 21.) 23 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

(9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 25 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 26 the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 27 the magistrate judge’s analysis. 28 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations, filed on June 19, 2024 (ECF No. 19), are 3 ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15); 5 3. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 6 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 7 | Date: August 5, 2024 8 /) ° “ / Mle 10 a AWN ok Troy L. Nunley> } 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28