1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM SOTO, Case No. 2:25-cv-1543-DC-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND (ECF Nos. 2, 4) 15 REHABILITATION, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 19 under

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

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On June 5, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 22 were served on plaintiff, and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 23 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed 24 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] court . . . .”). 1 | Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 2 | the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 5, 2025 (ECF No. 4), are adopted in full; 5 and 6 2. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 2), is DENIED and 7 | plaintiff is directed to tender the filing fee within twenty-one days this order. 8 3. Plaintiff is advised that his failure to pay the filing fee within the time provided 9 | will result in the dismissal of this action. 10 11 b IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 13 Dated: _ August 11,2025 _ RUC Dena Coggins 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28