Flournoy v. Manness

Full title: JAMES HENRY FLOURNOY, Plaintiff, v. ERIC MANNESS, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jun 20, 2013

2:11-cv-2844 KJM EFB P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 20, 2013)

Opinion

JAMES HENRY FLOURNOY, Plaintiff, v. ERIC MANNESS, et al., Defendants. No. 2:11-cv-2844 KJM EFB P United States District Court, E.D. California. June 20, 2013

          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 March 12, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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 carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. The findings and recommendations filed March 12, 2013, are adopted in full; and

         2. Plaintiff's First Amendment claim against defendant Bauer is dismissed without leave to amend.