(PS)Ortiz v. Markey ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RENE ORTIZ, No. 2:19-cv-02094-TLN-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MARY MARKEY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Rene Ortiz (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se with the above-entitled action. The 18 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 19 On August 11, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to 21 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within 30 days after service of the findings 22 and recommendations. (ECF No. 14.) The time for filing objections has expired, and no party 23 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 25 United 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); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 28 /// 1 Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings 2 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 11, 2020 (ECF No. 14), are adopted 5 in full; 6 2. Defendant’s October 24, 2019 Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED; 7 3. The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter 8 jurisdiction; and 9 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 DATED: October 21, 2020 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28