(PC) Brown v. Baughman, No. 2:2017cv01623 - Document 29 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/19/2020 ADOPTING 27 Findings and Recommendations in full and DISMISSING plaintiff's 26 First Amended Complaint without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim. CASE CLOSED. (York, M)

Download PDF
(PC) Brown v. Baughman Doc. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM BROWN, 12 No. 2:17-cv-1623-KJM-EFB P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ORDER BAUGHMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 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. On February 11, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 21 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to 23 the findings and recommendations.1 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 1 27 28 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 2 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 3 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 4 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 11, 2020, are adopted in full; 7 2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 26) is DISMISSED without leave to 8 amend for failure to state a cognizable claim; and 9 3. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 10 DATED: March 19, 2020. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.