“[D]eterminations of law 2 || by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 3 || ....”
How later courts described this case
- “[D]eterminations of law 2 || by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 3 || ....”
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 STEVEN K. BROWN, Case No. 2:23-cv-02321-KJM-JDP (PC)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 WRIGHT, 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 January 9, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were
21 served on plaintiff, and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and
22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the
23 findings and recommendations.1
24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,
25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed
26
1 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and
27 recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to
keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service
28 of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.
1 || denovo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law
2 || by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court
3 || ....”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be
4 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
6 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 9, 2024, ECF No. 9, are adopted in
7 | full;
8 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the required filing fee and
9 || failure to comply with court orders; and
10 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
11 | DATED: March 4, 2024.
12
4 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28