Seibel

(PC) Hill v. Seibel

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 16, 20242:21-cv-02382California346 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CYMEYON HILL, No. 2:21-cv-02382 KJM SCR P Plaintiff, v. ORDER A. SCOTLAND, et al., Defendants. 16 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 March 13, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Neither party 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…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.