The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ANTHONY BROWN, SR., No. 2:20-cv-02098-TLN-CKD
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 V. VOVKULIN, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20 On August 23, 2021, 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. 17.) Plaintiff has
23 not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602
25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed
27 the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by
28 the magistrate judge’s analysis.
1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 23, 2021 (ECF No. 17) are adopted in
3 1 full;
4 2. Defendants Holmes and Worrell are dismissed without further leave to amend;
5 3. This case is proceeding on First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants
6 | Vovkulin and Milliken; and
7 4. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings.
8 | Date: October 19, 2021
9 /)
10 “ \/ bu
LN
Troy L. Nunley> }
12 United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28