(PS) Warfield v. Attorney General State of California ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRODERICK J. WARFIELD, No. 2:21-cv-00157-KJM-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 1, 2, 3) 14 ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On February 11, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18 3), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were 20 filed. 21 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 22 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 23 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 24 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 25 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 26 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 27 ///// 28 ///// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 3 2. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED, and leave to amend is DENIED; and 4 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 5 | DATED: March 24, 2021. 6 7 l ti / ¢ q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28