1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PATRICK SMITH, Case No. 2:24-cv-0117-KJM-JDP (P) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 CALPIA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 under

. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 18 by

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On July 30, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 20 served on plaintiff, and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the 22 findings and recommendations. 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. As the Magistrate Judge correctly explained, 1 | allegations of mere negligence fundamentally cannot support a claim of due process violations or 2 | cruel and unusual punishments under

. See, e.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 USS. 3 |} 825, 835 (1994); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 US. 344, 347-48 (1986). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 30, 2025, are adopted in full; 6 2. The third amended complaint, ECF No. 27, is DISMISSED without leave to amend 7 || and for failure to state a cognizable claim; and 8 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this action. 9 | DATED: October 28, 2025.

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