(PS) Miller v. Department of Veterans Affairs ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSE FRANCIS MILLER, SR., No. 2:17-CV-0759-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of California local 20 rules. 21 On November 1, 2019, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, 22 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 23 within the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been 24 filed. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 26 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 27 reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations 28 of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 1 court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 1, 2019, are adopted in 5 full; 6 2. Defendants’ unopposed motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 24) is 7 granted; and 8 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 9 DATED: January 8, 2020. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28