From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Powers

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Mar 29, 2022
2:21-cv-2135-KJM-CKD (PS) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-2135-KJM-CKD (PS)

03-29-2022

LEROY SUNDERLAND JOHNSON, Plaintiffs, v. KATHLEEN SUE POWERS, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). On February 11, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 17.) On February 23, 2022, the court re-served those findings and recommendations to plaintiff. 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 11, 2022 (ECF No. 3) are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiffs complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed without leave to amend; and

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.


Summaries of

Johnson v. Powers

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Mar 29, 2022
2:21-cv-2135-KJM-CKD (PS) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2022)
Case details for

Johnson v. Powers

Case Details

Full title:LEROY SUNDERLAND JOHNSON, Plaintiffs, v. KATHLEEN SUE POWERS, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Mar 29, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-2135-KJM-CKD (PS) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2022)

Citing Cases

Dennison v. Caron Renate Whitten Stowers

Thus, the undersigned recommends denying leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Johnson v.…