(PS) Sellers v. City of Davis Police Department ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAY L. SELLERS, No. 2:20-cv-00875-TLN-EFB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CITY OF DAVIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, ESPRESSO ROMA 15 INC., PINE TREE GARDENS, US ATTORNEY FOR EASTERN 16 CALIFORNIA, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff Jay L. Sellers (“Plaintiff”), an individual proceeding pro se, filed the instant 20 action on April 28, 2020. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 21 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On June 12, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 23 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 24 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 8.) Neither party has filed 25 objections to the Findings and Recommendations.1 26 27 1 Plaintiff, however, did file a document styled as a “Motion to Dismiss Action Without Prejudice.” ECF No. 9. Plaintiff’s filing is not responsive to the pending findings and 28 recommendations. 1 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 2 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 3 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 4 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 5 Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings 6 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed June 12, 2020, are adopted in full; 9 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 10 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED: July 6, 2020 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28