# (PC) Brown v. Baughman

> District Court, E.D. California · March 20, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10017831

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** March 20, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10017831

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 WILLIAM BROWN, No. 2:17-cv-1623-KJM-EFB P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 BAUGHMAN, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided
19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20 On February 11, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which
21 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings
22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to
23 the findings and recommendations.1
24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,
25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed
26
1 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and recommendations was
27 returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court
apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents
28 at the record address of the party is fully effective.
1 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law
2 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court
3 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be
4 supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
6 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 11, 2020, are adopted in full;
7 2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 26) is DISMISSED without leave to
8 amend for failure to state a cognizable claim; and
9 3. The Clerk is directed to close the case.
10 DATED: March 19, 2020.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10017831. Public record. Not legal advice.