(PS) Iegorova v. Pavel ( 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-1109 JAM CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 PALYGA PAVEL, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On February 23, 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. 20 Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 21 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 22 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 23 1983). 24 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 25 recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to 26 keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 27 of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 28 //// 1 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 2 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed 4 February 13, 2020, are ADOPTED: 5 1. This action is dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); and 6 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 7 DATED: June 30, 2020 8 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____ 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28