“[D]eterminations of law by the 5 | magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”
How later courts described this case
- “[D]eterminations of law by the 5 | magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 GEORGE SCOTT, No. 2:23-cv-2749-TLN-SCR-P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 E. BROWN, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff George Scott (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil
18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20 On December 13, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which
21 were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and
22 recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days. (ECF No. 13). Instead of filing
23 objections, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file a first amended complaint.
24 (ECF No. 14). On January 6, 2025, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff sixty days in which to
25 file a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff was advised that the findings and
26 recommendations issued on December 13, 2024, would not be vacated unless Plaintiff complied
27 with the order and filed an amended complaint within the time provided. (Id.) More than sixty
28 days have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Nor has Plaintiff filed
1 | objections to the findings and recommendations.
2 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602
3 | F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
4 | See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the
5 | magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”).
6 | Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by
7 | the record and by the proper analysis.
8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
9 1. The findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 13), are ADOPTED in full; and
10 2. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure
11 to comply with the Court’s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110; see also
12 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted); and
13 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this action.
14
5 DATED: April 7, 2025 / | /
16 7,
17 TROY L. NUNLEY
ig CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28