(PS) Iegorova v. Feygan ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LIUDMYLA IEGOROVA, No. 2:19-cv-1512-MCE-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 DANIIL FEYGAN, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On October 7, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18 5), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were 20 filed. 21 Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 22 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 23 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 24 1983). 25 The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 26 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 27 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 5) are ADOPTED in full; ] 2. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) 1s DISMISSED for lack of subject matter 2 Jurisdiction pursuant to the substantiality doctrine; 3 3. Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot; 4 4. Plaintiff is DECLARED a Vexatious Litigant; 5 5. The Court ISSUES a pre-filing order as described in Section II.D of the Magistrate 6 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations; and 7 6. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to CLOSE this case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: October 29, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT TOS0e 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28