Bonta

(PS) Bird v. Bonta

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 22, 20242:23-cv-00525California355 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Donald M. Bird, No. 2:23-cv-00525 KJM DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 Rob Bonta, Attorney General State of California, 15 16 Defendant, 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 On December 21, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties, and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and 23 recommendations. The time for filing objections has expired, and no party has filed objections to 24 the findings and recommendations. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 27 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147…

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.