Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00739/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00739-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN R. RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF STOCKTON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-00739-TLN-DB

ORDER

Plaintiff Steven R. Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”), a county prisoner proceeding pro se, brings 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges several claims related to 

criminal charges brought against him in the San Joaquin County Superior Court in 2017. 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 22, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 

were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings 

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff has not filed 

any objections to the findings and recommendations. 

Accordingly, 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 

1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

///

Case 2:19-cv-00739-TLN-DB Document 10 Filed 01/13/20 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

Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings 

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed October 22, 2019 (ECF No. 9), are adopted 

in full; and

2. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice. See L.R. 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 10, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-00739-TLN-DB Document 10 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 2