(PS)Crago v. Sacramento Sheriff ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARY J. CRAGO, No. 2:19-cv-02510-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 SACRAMENTO SHERIFF, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Mary Crago (“Plaintiff”) proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma pauperis 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 31, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 5.) No objections were filed. 23 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 24 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 25 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 26 1983). The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 27 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 31, 2020 (ECF No. 5), are adopted 3 in full; 4 2. This action is DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rue of Civil Procedure 41(b); and 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 DATED: December 1, 2020 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28