Opinion

(PC) Smith v. Parole Board

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Dec 8, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.5%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 ANTHNOY X. SMITH, No. 2:19-cv-02454-TLN-DB

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER

14 PAROLE BOARD, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff Anthony Smith (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this

18 civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20 On September 24, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

21 which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the

22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 24.) On October

23 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 25.)

24 The Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which

25 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

26 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see

27 also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed

28 findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and

1 decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th

2 Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi

3 Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

4 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court

5 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate

6 judge’s analysis.

7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 24, 2020 (ECF No. 24), are

9 adopted in full;

10 2. This action is DISMISSED pursuant to Local Rule 110 and Federal Rule of Civil

11 Procedure 41(b); and

12 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

13 IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 DATED: December 7, 2020

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.