(PS) Iegorova v. Shpak ( 2020 )

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-1613-JAM-EFB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ANASTASIYA SHPAK, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On March 19, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 18 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 19 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.1 20 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v. United 21 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 22 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 23 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 24 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 25 ///// 26 1 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and recommendations was 27 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 28 at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 3 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed March 19, 2020, are ADOPTED; 4 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without leave to amend; and 5 3. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 6 DATED: May 11, 2020 7 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____ 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28