(PS) Nelson Rogers v. Enjalran ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARY A. NELSON ROGERS, No. 2:19-cv-01564-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Mary A. Nelson Rogers (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this civil action 19 alleging that IRS agents unlawfully inspected her taxpayer information in violation of multiple 20 federal statutes. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 21 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On September 21, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 23 which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to 24 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 68.) On 25 October 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 69.) 26 The Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 27 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 28 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see 1 also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed 2 findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and 3 decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th 4 Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi 5 Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 6 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 7 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 8 judge’s analysis. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 21, 2020 (ECF No. 68), are 11 adopted in full; 12 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 64) is GRANTED; 13 3. Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint (ECF No. 62) is DISMISSED without leave to 14 amend; and 15 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 DATED: November 6, 2020 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28