DiTomas

(PC) Birrell v. DiTomas

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 4, 20242:22-cv-01834California443 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID WESLEY BIRRELL, aka Bella- No. 2:22-cv-01834-KJM-DMC-P Christina Birrell, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 14 MICHELE DiTOMAS, 15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of California local rules. On June 25, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties, and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the time specified therein. The findings and recommendations were re-served on plaintiff on July 25, 2024. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 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)…

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.