1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC EL, No. 2:23-CV-1433-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 T. SOHAL, 15 Defendant. 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 July 16, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on the parties, and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the 22 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 de 25 novo. See Robbins v. Carey,

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by 26 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 July 16, 2025, ECF No. 27, are adopted 3 | in full. 4 2. Defendant’s unopposed motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 23, is granted. 5 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 6 This order resolves ECF Nos. 23, 27. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 | DATED: August 20, 2025.

10 — ¥ FMS —— STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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