1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIO SANCHEZ, Case No. 2:24-cv-2737-WBS-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOHNSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under

. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 18, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on plaintiff, and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 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. 26 See Robbins v. Carey,

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 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 1 | the record and by the proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations, filed March 18, 2025, are adopted in full; 4 2. This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the 5 | magistrate judge’s Order of October 11, 2024 (Docket No. 5); and 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 7 | Dated: April 25, 2025 / 4 , . 4k. Ae / 8 WILLIAMB.SHUBB 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28