Opinion

(PC) Kyle v. California Victim Compensation Board

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Oct 18, 2021
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.7%

“[D]eterminations of law 28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 1 | ....°

How later courts described this case

  • “[D]eterminations of law 28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 1 | ....°

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 DONTA LADEAL KYLE, No. 2: 21-cv-0479 KJM KJN P

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER

14 CALIFORNIA VICTIM

COMPENSATION BOARD, ET. AL.,

15

Defendants.

16

17

18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief

19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided

20 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21 On August 27, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

22 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings

23 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff did not file objections to the

24 findings and recommendations.

25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,

26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed

27 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law

28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court

1 | ....°). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

2 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 27, 2021, are adopted in full; and

5 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

6 || DATED: October 15, 2021

7

8 ( ti / ¢ q_/

9 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

1]

12

13

14

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.