Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00954/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00954-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Singh
Defendant
Lafonzo R. Turner
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

LAFONZO R. TURNER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SINGH, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:23-cv-00954 KJM DB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a former 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 as 

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

 On February 23, 2024, 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 twenty-one days. Plaintiff has not filed objections 

to the findings and recommendations, but he has requested an extension of time to file an 

amended complaint, ECF No. 23, and a first amended complaint, ECF No. 24. 

 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00954-DC-SCR Document 25 Filed 04/29/24 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 

. . . .”). 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. 22) are adopted in full; 

 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay is DENIED; and 

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

proceedings. 

DATED: April 29, 2024. 

Case 2:23-cv-00954-DC-SCR Document 25 Filed 04/29/24 Page 2 of 2