Dowbak
(PC) Bullock v. Dowbak
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 RICAHRD LEE BULLOCK, No. 2:23-cv-1634-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOHN M. DOWBACK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 22, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on Plaintiff, and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 21.) The time to 23 file objections has passed, and Plaintiff did not file any objections. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist.,…