(PC) Mungia v. Sheriffe Department

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 ISAAC MUNGIA, No. 2:21-cv-1641 JAM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SHERIFF’s DEPT., et al., 15 Defendants. [16] 17 Plaintiff, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to [19] 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 10, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff did not file 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 25 recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to 26 keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 27 of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 28 ///// 1 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 2 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 3 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452 , 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having 4 reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 5 and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 10, 2022, are adopted in full; and 8 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). [10] Dated: May 11, 2022 /s/ John A. Mendez [11] THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE