Opinion
2:19-cv-00269 KJM AC P
07-01-2021
MIGUEL BELMONTE, Plaintiff, v. A. SMITH, 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 as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On April 8, 2021, the magistrate judge issued 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 twenty-one days. ECF No. 14. 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 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations 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, with one correction. Page 4, line 22 appears to contain a typographical error that may prove confusing if left uncorrected. The court adopts the F&Rs after adding the word “not” in that line: “Because there is no federal constitutional right to a grievance process, the alleged mishandling or erroneous denial of an inmate appeal does not itself violate due process.” See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.”).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued April 8, 2021 (ECF No. 14) are ADOPTED in full;
2. This case shall proceed only on plaintiffs claim that defendant M. Carter violated his due process right to an impartial hearing officer at the RVR hearing on July 13, 2018;
3. All other claims are DISMISSED without leave to amend;
4. All defendants other than M. Carter are TERMINATED without service; and
5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings.