(PS) Murphy v. AIG Claims, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANNON O. MURPHY, SR., No. 2:20-cv-00301-TLN-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 AIG CLAIMS, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Shannon O. Murphy, Sr. (“Plaintiff”), an individual proceeding pro se, filed the 18 above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 On September 23, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff 23 has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983); see also 28 27 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 28 / / / 1 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 23, 2020 (ECF No. 11), are 5 ADOPTED IN FULL; and 6 2. Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 10), is DENIED, and 7 3. All further filings in this case are DISREGARDED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 DATED: October 26, 2020 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28