Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01054/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01054-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN W. DUNIGAN,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-05-1054 DFL GGH PS

vs.

CA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On November 23, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No objections were filed.

 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-01054-DFL-GGH Document 15 Filed 05/19/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 The court would not ordinarily dismiss the complaint with prejudice. However, because

1

plaintiff made no objection to the recommendation of a dismissal with prejudice, it appears that

plaintiff is not interested in further pursuing this action. 

2

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed November 23, 2005, are

ADOPTED; and

2. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice.1

DATED: 5/18/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01054-DFL-GGH Document 15 Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 2