(PC) Rouser v. Covello

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 WILLIAM ROUSER, No. 2:21-cv-01396-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S. GYLES, 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 November 3, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 25 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See 26 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 | ....°). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 3, 2022, are adopted in full; 5 2. Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunctive relief, ECF No. 9, is denied without 6 || prejudice; and 7 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 8 | proceedings. 9 | DATED: January 17, 2023. [10] il ( tied ¢ q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE