(PC) Zinda v. Amador County Sheriff Dept.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL R. ZINDA, III, Case No. 2:22-cv-01990-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 AMADOR COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a former county inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 19 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 9, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 22 served on all parties, and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither 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 (9th…