(PS)Crago v. Sacramento Sheriff, No. 2:2019cv02510 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/1/2020 ADOPTING 5 Findings and Recommendations in full. This action is DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rue of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
(PS)Crago v. Sacramento Sheriff Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARY J. CRAGO, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:19-cv-02510-TLN-CKD ORDER v. SACRAMENTO SHERIFF, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff Mary Crago (“Plaintiff”) proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma pauperis 17 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 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. On August 31, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 21 which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 5.) No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 23 24 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 25 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 26 1983). The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 27 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 31, 2020 (ECF No. 5), are adopted 3 in full; 4 2. This action is DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rue of Civil Procedure 41(b); and 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 DATED: December 1, 2020 8 9 10 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 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.