Vangerwen

(PC) Anderson v. Vangerwen

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 23, 20242:20-cv-00246California387 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 Ryan David Anderson, No. 2:20-cv-00246-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 Robert M. Van Gerwen, 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 as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On September 7, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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 twenty days. See F&Rs, ECF No. 28. 23 Those twenty days have passed, and plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and 24 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…

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.