# (PC) Casto v. Newsom

> District Court, E.D. California · September 6, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10046975

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** September 6, 2022
- **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/10046975

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10046975. Public record. Not legal advice.