(PS) Blackshire v. Bright ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 PATRICK BLACKSHIRE, No. 2:19-cv-1305-KJM-EFB PS 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER 15 OFFICER BRIGHT, 16 Defendant. 17 18 On March 31, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 19 served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 20 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 21 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 22 recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to 23 keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 24 of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 27 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 1 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed March 31, 2020, are ADOPTED; and 5 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim as set forth in 6 the February 6, 2020 order (ECF No. 3). 7 DATED: May 5, 2020. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28