From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lopez v. Unknown

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 16, 2021
2:21-cv-1716 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-1716 KJM KJN P

11-16-2021

JOSE FRANKIN LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN, Defendants.


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 October 4, 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 fourteen days. Plaintiff did not file 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. 1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 4, 2021, are adopted in full; and
2. This action is dismissed without prejudice to plaintiffs filing a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254.
2


Summaries of

Lopez v. Unknown

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 16, 2021
2:21-cv-1716 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2021)
Case details for

Lopez v. Unknown

Case Details

Full title:JOSE FRANKIN LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN, Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 16, 2021

Citations

2:21-cv-1716 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2021)