Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01323/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01323-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 

27 

28 

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Christopher Elliott, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. Campose, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:22-cv-01323-KJM-DMC-P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Christopher Elliott, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 

provided by Eastern District of California local rules. 

 On February 20, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, 

which were served on the parties, and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 

within the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been 

filed. 

 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations 

of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 

///// 

Case 2:22-cv-01323-KJM-DMC Document 35 Filed 04/16/24 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 

27 

28 

2 

court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the proper analysis, except for the recommendation of dismissal 

without leave to amend. Therefore, the court adopts the findings and recommendations with one 

modification: the court dismisses the case with leave to amend. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 

1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (“A district court should not dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to 

amend unless ‘it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 

amendment.’”). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 20, 2024, ECF No. 34, 

are adopted in full. 

 2. Defendant’s request for judicial notice, ECF No. 28, is GRANTED. 

 3. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 27, is GRANTED. 

 4. This action is DISMISSED with leave to amend for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted. 

 5. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further 

pretrial proceedings consistent with this order. 

DATED: April 15, 2024. 

Case 2:22-cv-01323-KJM-DMC Document 35 Filed 04/16/24 Page 2 of 2