(PC) Benton v. Clingman

[5] 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [8] 9 BRUCE MILES BENTON, Case No. 2:22-cv-02275-TLN-JDP 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 CLINGMAN, et al., 13 Defendants. [14] 15 Plaintiff, a county inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 16 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to [17] 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On March 7, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 19 were served on Plaintiff, and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 20 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days.1 (ECF No. 31.) The time to 21 file objections has passed, and Plaintiff did not file any objections. 22 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 23 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 24 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). Having reviewed the file, the Court 25 finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. [26] 27 1 Although it appears from the record that Plaintiff was not properly served a copy of the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, Plaintiff was properly served. It is Plaintiff’s 28 responsibility to always keep the Court apprised of his address. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations, filed on March 7, 2024 (ECF No. 31) are 3 ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 6 Date: April 10, 2024