(PS) Eggman v. Miller ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID JAMES EGGMAN, No. 2:20-cv-0323 KJM DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RUSS MILLER, ESQ, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 18 United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 19 On April 9, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 20 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations were to be filed within thirty days after service of the findings and 22 recommendations. The thirty-day period has expired, and plaintiff has not filed any objections to 23 the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 9, 2020 (ECF No. 13) are adopted in 5 full; 6 2. Plaintiff’s November 18, 2019 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is 7 denied; 8 3. Plaintiff’s October 24, 2019 complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice; 9 and 10 4. This action is dismissed. 11 DATED: November 3, 2020. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28