(PC) Khademi v. South Placer County Jail et al, No. 2:2021cv01498 - Document 30 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 01/17/2023 ADOPTING 29 Findings and Recommendations in full. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute. CASE CLOSED. (Rodriguez, E)
Download PDF
(PC) Khademi v. South Placer County Jail et al Doc. 30 Case 2:21-cv-01498-KJM-DB Document 30 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVOOD KHADEMI, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:21-cv-1498 KJM DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER SOUTH PLACER CO. JAIL, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 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. 20 On September 27, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 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. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the 23 findings and recommendations. Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the 24 findings and recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s 25 responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local 26 Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 27 28 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-01498-KJM-DB Document 30 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2 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 September 27, 2022, are adopted in full; and 7 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See E.D. Cal. R. 8 183(b). 9 DATED: January 17, 2023. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.