Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01084/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01084-4/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 

RAMON EDDIE MENDEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

A. MORALES, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-01084-KJM-EFB (PC) 

ORDER 

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

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

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

 On November 30, 2022, 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. Plaintiff has not filed objections to 

the findings and recommendations.1

///// 

///// 

1

 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. 

Case 2:22-cv-01084-KJM-EFB Document 14 Filed 01/17/23 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 

 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 

supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 30, 2022, are adopted in full; 

 2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Matthews are dismissed without prejudice; and 

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

proceedings. 

DATED: January 17, 2023. 

Case 2:22-cv-01084-KJM-EFB Document 14 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2