1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTOINE L. ARDDS, No. 2:20-cv-0133-TLN-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 V. KIEU, C. LUNDGREN AND J. LEVIN, 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff Antoine L. Ardds (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil 19 rights action seeking relief under

. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 16, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 22 were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 23 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Following an extension of time, plaintiff 24 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 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. 27 See Robbins v. Carey,

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 28 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 1 court[.]”). Having reviewed the entire file, including the objections, the Court finds the findings 2 | and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 90), are ADOPTED in full; and 5 2. Defendants’ summary judgment motion, (ECF No. 77), is GRANTED. 6 | Date: March 10, 2025 4 8 9 Luu bly TROY L. NUWLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28