(PS) Coxon v. United States District Court ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENJAMIN COXON, No. 2:21-cv-00792-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On December 3, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 18 were served on the plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 20 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 21 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 22 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by 23 the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 24 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// ] Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed December 3, 2021, are adopted in full; 3 2. This action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and 4 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 5 | DATED: January 31, 2022. 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