(PC) Smiley v. Schultz

[6] 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [9] 10 JEREMY JEROME SMILEY, No. 2:24-cv-01626-KJM-EFB (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 JASON SCHULTZ, et al., 14 Defendants. [15] 16 Plaintiff proceeds without counsel in this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. 18 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On March 5, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 20 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 21 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No party has filed objections to the 22 findings and recommendations. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 24 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 25 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 26 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 supported by 28 the record and by the proper analysis. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 5, 2025 (ECF No. 24) are adopted in 3 full; 4 2. Plaintiff's October 23, 2024 motion to reopen (ECF No. 16) is DENIED; and 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively terminate plaintiff's pending motion 6 for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 17). 7 || DATED: June 17, 2025. 9 = j| FVU/ □□□ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE [10] 1]