From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Diaz v. Dixon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 30, 2018
No. 2:17-cv-1240 MCE CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2018)

Opinion

No. 2:17-cv-1240 MCE CKD P

01-30-2018

ROY DIAZ, Plaintiff, v. N. DIXON, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

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 December 26, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not 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 December 26, 2017 are ADOPTED in full; and

2. All defendants other than defendants Dixon and Ferris are DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 30, 2018

/s/_________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Diaz v. Dixon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 30, 2018
No. 2:17-cv-1240 MCE CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2018)
Case details for

Diaz v. Dixon

Case Details

Full title:ROY DIAZ, Plaintiff, v. N. DIXON, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 30, 2018

Citations

No. 2:17-cv-1240 MCE CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2018)