1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RANDALL PARKER, No. 2:22-CV-1838-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GARY REDMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern 19 District of California local rules. 20 On October 11, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on the parties, and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within 22 the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24

(9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 25 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey,

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 11, 2023, are adopted in 3 | full. 4 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of prosecution and 5 || failure to comply with court rules and orders. 6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 7 | DATED: January 11, 2024. 8 9 10 CHIEF STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28