Opinion
2:20-cv-1110 KJM DB P
09-27-2021
VITALY KONONOV, Plaintiff, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY MAIN JAIL, Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 May 10, 2021, 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 thirty days. Instead of filing objections, plaintiff has attempted to file a second amended complaint, which is untimely. In addition, the proposed second amended complaint does not cure the defects of the prior, dismissed complaints.
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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The findings and recommendations filed May 10, 2021, are adopted;
2. This action is dismissed, without further leave to file an amended complaint, for failure to comply with a court order and failure to state a claim;
3. The second amended complaint and motion to stay are denied as moot; and
4. The Clerk's office is directed to close this case.