Opinion
2:23-cv-00410 KJM AC PS
06-30-2023
DONALD L. COBB, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21).
On April 24, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations but did file a "notice regarding jurisdiction.” ECF No. 5.
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 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[Determinations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. In plaintiff's “notice,” he claims he did not consent to the magistrate judge's assignment on this case, and therefore contends the magistrate judge did not have jurisdiction. However, plaintiff's consent was not needed here. Under Local Rule 302(c)(21), the magistrate judge was properly assigned to this case for pretrial purposes because plaintiff proceeds in propria persona (without counsel). Moreover, this court has thoroughly reviewed the file and concludes plaintiff's complaint is time-barred, as explained by the findings and recommendations.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed April 24, 2023, are adopted in full;
2. All claims against all defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice; and
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.