(PC) Holmes v. Cardoza

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DOMINIQUE HOLMES, Case No. 2:24-cv-2190-WBS-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER N. CARDOZA, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a county 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 November 1, 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. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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, to the extent that such recommendations are consistent with | this Order.

3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations, filed November 1, 2024, are adopted to the extent | that such recommendations are consistent with this Order; and 6 2. This action is dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee and for failure to prosecute; 7 3. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is denied as moot; and 8 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

9 | Dated: November 20, 2024 he Lhe ak. Od h-€.

10 WILLIAM B. SHUBB 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE