(PC) Perryman v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al, No. 2:2019cv02517 - Document 40 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 11/22/21 ADOPTING 32 Findings and Recommendations in full DISMISSING action without prejudice. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
(PC) Perryman v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al Doc. 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID PERRYMAN, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:19-cv-2517 JAM KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER CA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILTIATION, et al., Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On June 25, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 22 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On July 15, 2021, plaintiff was 24 granted a 60 day extension of time to objections; on August 19, 2021, plaintiff was granted a 45 25 day extension of time to file objections; on October 01, 2021, plaintiff was granted one final 30 26 day extension of time to file objections, and warned that failure to file objections would result in 27 the findings and recommendations being forwarded to the district court. Plaintiff did not file 28 objections to the findings and recommendations. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 June 25, 2021 (ECF No. 32), are ADOPTED 8 in full; and 9 10 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 11 12 Dated: November 22, 2021 13 /s/ John A. Mendez THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 14 15 /perr2517.800 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.