Opinion

(PC) Casto v. Newsom

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Sep 6, 2022
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.1%

“[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”

How later courts described this case

  • “[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”

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 HERSHEL W. CASTO, No. 2:19-cv-02209-KJM-JDP (PC)

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER

14 NEWSOM, 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 as provided

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

20 On February 24, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

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

22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.

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

24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed

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

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

27 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 24, 2022, are adopted in full.

3 2. The second amended complaint’s claims against Newsom, Brown, Diaz, Lizarraga,

4 || Covello, Burton, Clark Kelso, and Jane Does 1, 2, and 3 are dismissed without leave to amend.

5 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial

6 || proceedings.

7 | DATED: September 6, 2022.

8

9 l ti / ¢ q_/

10 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.