(PS) Lepp v. Yuba County ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REVEREND HEIDI LEPP, et al., No. 2:17-cv-1317-KJM-EFB PS 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 YUBA COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On September 14, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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. 20 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 21 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 22 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 23 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 24 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 14, 2020, are ADOPTED; 3 2. The second amended complaint’s claims against defendants Reisig and Net-5, the only 4 remaining defendants, are dismissed for failure to timely effect service of process and 5 for lack of prosecution; and 6 3. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 7 DATED: October 21, 2020. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28