# (PC)Brown v. Lelis

> District Court, E.D. California · October 11, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10047767

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** October 11, 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/10047767

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10047767. Public record. Not legal advice.