“[D]eterminations of law 4 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 5 . . . .”
How later courts described this case
- “[D]eterminations of law 4 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 5 . . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DEXTER BROWN, No. 2:17-cv-2041 KJM AC P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 PURUSHOTTAMA SAGIREDDY,
15 Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se who is now deceased, filed this civil rights
18 action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred a United States Magistrate
19 Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20 On June 10, 2020, defense counsel filed a notice of plaintiff’s death and informed any
21 potential successor in interest that this action must be dismissed if a motion for substitution was
22 not made within 90 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). At the conclusion of the 90-day period,
23 no motion for substitution was filed. On September 10, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings
24 and recommendations, which were served on plaintiff’s last address of record and contained
25 notice therein that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days. Although plaintiff’s copy
26 of the findings and recommendations was returned, service of documents at the record address of
27 a party is fully effective. See Local Rule 182(f).
28 /////
1 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,
2 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed
3 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law
4 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court
5 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be
6 supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
8 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 10, 2020, are adopted in full; and
9 2. This action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 25(a)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
10 DATED: October 1, 2020.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28