(PS) Selck v. City of Sacramento ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MORREY SELCK, No. 2:19-cv-341-JAM-EFB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On May 14, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 18 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 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 27 recommendations was 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 28 of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed May 14, 2020, are ADOPTED; 3 and 4 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim as set forth in 5 the court’s March 24, 2020 order. ECF No. 20; see ECF No. 19. 6 DATED: June 29, 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