(PS) Johnson v. Vigen ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TODD LADON JOHNSON, No. 2:19-cv-00769-KJM-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 LAUREN VIGEN, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On March 5, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 18 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. 20 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 21 recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to 22 keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 23 of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 24 Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 25 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). 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: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed March 5, 2020, are ADOPTED; 5 2. This action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 41(b); and 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 8 || DATED: October 13, 2020. 9 10 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28