# (PC) Brown v. Duffy

> District Court, E.D. California · June 1, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10019497

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** June 1, 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/10019497

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 LANCE BROWN, No. 2:18-cv-02494-TLN-CKD
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 BRIAN DUFFY, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Lance Brown (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights
18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20 On April 17, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were
21 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings
22 and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days.1 (ECF No. 22.) Neither party has filed
23 objections to the Findings and Recommendations.
24 ///
25 ///
26

27 1 The Findings and Recommendations indicates a 14-day period for objections in the “Plain
Language Summary” and a 30-day objection period in the conclusion. The Court has waited the
28 30-days and still no party has objected.
1 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v.
2 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are
3 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.
4 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
5 Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings
6 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.
7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
8 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 17, 2020 (ECF No. 22), are adopted in
9 full;
10 2. Defendants’ Amended Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No.
11 18) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED to the extent it
12 requests screening of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint;
13 3. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 16) is DISMISSED without leave to
14 amend for failing to state any claim for relief; and
15 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
17 DATED: May 29, 2020
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10019497. Public record. Not legal advice.