(PC) Clark v. Cleveland

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANDRE JAMES CLARK, SR., No. 2:21-CV-1975-TLN-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER CLEVELAND, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Andre James Clark, Sr. (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 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 July 24, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties, and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.

24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

26 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[.]”).

28 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by | the record and by the proper analysis.

2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 24, 2023, are ADOPTED IN 4 FULL; 5 2. Plaintiff's freedom of religion claims are DISMISSED; 6 3, Defendants Jamil, Haynes, and Baker are DISMISSED; 7 4. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's first amended complaint (ECF No. 12) 8 against Defendant Cleveland on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive 9 force claim; and 10 5. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further pretrial 11 proceedings.

12 || Date: November 8, 2024 15 7, TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE