# (PC) Smith v. Parole Board

> District Court, E.D. California · December 8, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10023908

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** December 8, 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/10023908

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10023908. Public record. Not legal advice.