(PS) Young v. Winn ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, No. 2:20-cv-01472-TLN-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 JUDGE JOHN WINN and ROBIN 15 LESLIE PEARL, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Daniel Christopher Young (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding in this action pro se. The 19 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 On March 24, 2021, 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 thirty days after service of the findings and 23 recommendations. (ECF No. 5.) The thirty-day period has expired and Plaintiff has not filed any 24 objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 26 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 27 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 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 March 24, 2021 (ECF No. 5), are 5 | ADOPTED IN FULL; 6 2. Plamtiff’s July 22, 2020 Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice; 7 | and 8 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 9 IT ISSO ORDERED. 10 DATED: May 20, 2021 () f /) i “ ! Vu 12 Troy L. Nuhlep> □ 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28