(PC)Garrett v. State of California et al, No. 2:2021cv01825 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/3/22 ADOPTING 5 Findings and Recommendations.This action is dismissed without prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
(PC)Garrett v. State of California et al Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAMEO LOREE GARRETT, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:21-cv-01825 KJM DB P v. ORDER STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 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 22, 2022, 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 twenty-one days. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff has not 23 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 24 25 recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to 26 keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 27 of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 2 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 3 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 4 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 5 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 6 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 22, 2022 (ECF No. 5), are adopted 9 in full; 10 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice; and 11 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 12 DATED: June 3, 2022. 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.