(PS) Ward v. Department of Child Protective Services ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL N. WARD, No. 2:19-cv-652-MCE EFB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DEPARTMENT OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, MEGAN 15 DANIELS, MARINA CHAMBERS, 16 Defendants. 17 18 On September 29, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 19 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 20 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.1 21 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v. United 22 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 23 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 24 The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 25 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 26 1 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 27 recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 28 of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed September 29, 2020, (ECF No. 6) 3 | are ADOPTED; 4 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim as set forth in 5 | the August 28, 2020 order (ECF No. 5); and 6 3. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: November 16, 2020 A ates LE hu rfl ASX, Xe: 0 SENIOR UNITED STATES URTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28