CDCR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONALD CANFIELD, No. 2:18-CV-1092-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 NARINDER SAUKHLA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 181983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern 19 District of California local rules. 20 On August 1, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the 22 time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de 25 novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by 26 the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both…