Johnson v. Parmar ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT JOHNSON, No. 2:15-cv-256-KJM-EFB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 NARESHKUMAR PARMAR; DAXA PARMAR; and Does 1-10, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On September 1, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 19 were 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 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 22 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 23 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 24 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 25 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 26 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 1, 2020, are ADOPTED; 3 2. Plaintiff’s ex parte application for entry of stipulated judgment (ECF No. 20) is 4 granted; and 5 3. The court approves the stipulation of judgment between plaintiff and defendants (ECF 6 No. 20-4) and orders: 7 a. Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants; and 8 b. Plaintiff is awarded the principal amount of $9,600, plus interest at 10 percent 9 per annum, and $1,500 for attorney fees and costs. 10 DATED: October 21, 2020. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28