Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00892/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00892-13/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANSAR EL MUHAMMAD,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOLANO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:21-cv-0892-TLN-JDP (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 November 4, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 

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

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. This deadline has passed and neither 

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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] 

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

Case 2:21-cv-00892-TLN-JDP Document 47 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

supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 4, 2024, (ECF No. 46), are 

ADOPTED in full;

2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to

comply with court orders for the reasons set forth in the September 18, 2024 order

(ECF No. 45);

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 44), is DENIED as moot;

4. Defendants’ motion for leave to file a second summary-judgment motion, (ECF No. 

43), is DENIED as moot; and 

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

DATE: December 5, 2024

___________________________________

TROY L. NUNLEY

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-00892-TLN-JDP Document 47 Filed 12/06/24 Page 2 of 2