Filed: Jun. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 12, 2018
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 15, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendatio
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 15, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendation..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On December 15, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
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 de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
The court writes separately to make the following changes. On page 2, line 12 of the findings and recommendations, ECF No. 32, the word challenges is changed to challenge. The text beginning on page 6, line 13, is changed to amend the case citations to read as follows: The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that California Penal Code § 2085.5, which requires the Director of the CDCR "to make deductions from prisoner wage and trust account deposits for payment of restitution obligations, is rationally related to legitimate state interests in compensating crime victims. Craft v. Ahuja, 475 Fed.Appx. 649, 650 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Abney v. Alameida, 334 F.Supp.2d 1221, 1232 (S.D.Cal. 2004) ("Plaintiff has not, and cannot, allege that the deduction of money to satisfy the victim restitution order is not a legitimate interest of the State of California.")." The footnote reference on page 6, line 22, is moved up to follow the citation to Craft, supra. On page 6, line 21, the citation to Craft is changed to "See Craft, 475 Fed.Appx. at 650." With these changes, the findings and recommendations are adopted.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed December 15, 2017, are adopted as modified by this order;
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 20) is granted; and
3. This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
