1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROSENDO GONZALEZ, Jr., Case No. 2:25-cv-1491-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BUTTE COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Rosendo Gonzalez, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action alleging 18 claims relating to his April 5, 2025 arrest. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 14, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff filed 23 objections on November 3, 2025 (ECF No. 12), which the Court has considered. 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, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds the findings and 1 || 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 October 14, 2025 (ECF No. 11), are adopted 4 in full; 5 2. Plaintiffs first amended complaint (ECF No. 9) is dismissed without leave to amend 6 for failure to state a claim; and 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 | Date: November 21, 2025 10 11 TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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