(PC) Driver v. Maya, et al.,, No. 2:2020cv01665 - Document 184 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/19/2022 ADOPTING 161 Findings and Recommendations in full and DENYING 160 Motion for Injunctive Relief. (Perdue, C.)

Download PDF
(PC) Driver v. Maya, et al., Doc. 184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BILLY DRIVER, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:20-cv-01665-TLN-KJN Plaintiff, ORDER v. KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 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 July 21, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 22 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 23 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 161.) Plaintiff 24 was re-served with the findings and recommendations on July 29, 2022, to his current address. 25 Neither party filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 26 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 27 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 28 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 2 the magistrate judge’s analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed July 21, 2022 (ECF No. 161), are 5 6 7 ADOPTED in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 160) is DENIED. DATED: September 19, 2022 8 9 10 11 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 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.