Filed: Oct. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 13, 2015
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , Chief 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 15, 2015, the magistrate judge filed Findings and Recommendations herein (ECF No. 24) which were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the Findings and R
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , Chief 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 15, 2015, the magistrate judge filed Findings and Recommendations herein (ECF No. 24) which were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Re..
More
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On September 15, 2015, the magistrate judge filed Findings and Recommendations herein (ECF No. 24) which were served on all parties and which contained notice 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 magistrate judge's analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 15, 2015 (ECF No. 24) are ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) is DENIED;
3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A), Defendant shall file an answer to the FAC within fourteen (14) days of the date that this Order is electronically filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
