Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01789/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01789-19/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONRELL D. MURPHY,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PIERCE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-1789-TLN-CSK (P)

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

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

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On October 09, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 

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

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. The deadline has passed, 

and no objections have been filed.

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 

recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to 

keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 

of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 

Case 2:21-cv-01789-TLN-CSK Document 76 Filed 12/06/24 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

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] court[.]”).

Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 

the record and by the proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 75) are ADOPTED in full; and

2. This action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

DATE: December 5, 2024

___________________________________

TROY L. NUNLEY

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01789-TLN-CSK Document 76 Filed 12/06/24 Page 2 of 2