(PC) Calderon v. Holmes

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JUAN CARLOS CALDERON, Case No. 2:25-cv-1446-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER B. HOLMES, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Juan Carlos Calderon (“Plaintiff”), a state 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 June 2, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 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. This deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed any objections.

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 on June 2, 2025, (ECF No. 6), are 4 ADOPTED in full; and 5 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 2), is DENIED; and 6 3. Plaintiff is directed to tender the filing fee within twenty-one days of this order.

7 Date: August 8, 2025