(PC) Gutierrez v. San Joaquin County Jail, No. 2:2022cv01435 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 01/24/23 ADOPTING 8 Findings and Recommendations in full. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to pay the required filing fee and failure to comply with court orders. CASE CLOSED(Licea Chavez, V)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Gutierrez v. San Joaquin County Jail Doc. 9 Case 2:22-cv-01435-KJM-JDP Document 9 Filed 01/25/23 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 TOBIAS GUTIERREZ ORNELAS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:22-cv-01435-KJM-JDP (PC) v. ORDER SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL, 15 Defendant. 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 December 22, 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 fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to 23 the findings and recommendations.1 24 25 26 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 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-01435-KJM-JDP Document 9 Filed 01/25/23 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 December 22, 2022, are adopted in full; 7 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the required filing fee and 8 9 10 failure to comply with court orders; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. DATED: January 24, 2023. 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.
