Opinion

(PC)Brown v. Lelis

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Oct 11, 2022
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.2%

“[D]eterminations 1 | of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 2 || court....”

How later courts described this case

  • “[D]eterminations 1 | of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 2 || court....”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MARK ANTHONY BROWN, No. 2:20-CV-0885-KJM-DMC-P

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER

14 P. LELIS, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under

18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provide by

19 Eastern District of California local rules.

20 On January 24, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations,

21 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections

22 within the time specified therein. Plaintiff thereafter filed objections on February 9, 2022, seeking

23 an extension of time to file substantive objections. On March 3, 2022, the Magistrate Judge

24 granted Plaintiff a forty-five day extension to file an objection, but no objections to the findings

25 and recommendations have subsequently been filed.

26 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United

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

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

1 | of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate]

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

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

4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 24, 2022, are adopted in

6 | full;

7 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 23, is granted; and

8 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.

9 || DATED: October 11, 2022.

10

1 ee

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.