(PS) Shreeman v. Cudney ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL KENNETH SHREEMAN, No. 2:18-cv-02329-TLN-EFB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MARK DAVID CUDNEY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Paul Kenneth Shreeman (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings the instant action. 18 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 19 and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 31, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 21 served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff has not filed any 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 25 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 26 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 27 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 28 /// 1 Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings 2 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed March 31, 2020 (ECF No. 5), are adopted in 5 full; 6 2. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim as set forth in 7 the February 6, 2020 Order (ECF No. 4); and 8 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 DATED: April 27, 2020 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28