(PC)Dai v. United States of America et al, No. 2:2020cv02331 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/20/2021 ADOPTING 4 The Findings and Recommendations in full; This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Dai v. United States of America et al Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HUEI J. DAI, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:20-cv-02331 KJM DB P v. ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 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 8, 2021, 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 thirty days. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff has not filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 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 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 8, 2021 (ECF No. 4), are adopted in 5 6 7 full; and 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. DATED: April 20, 2021. 8 9 10 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.
