(PS) Siratsamy v. Sacramento County Sheriffs Department ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SOMPHOTH BOBY SIRATSAMY, No. 2:21–cv–0678–JAM–KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 4) 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On July 8, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 4), 19 which were served on the plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 20 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were filed. 21 Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 22 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de 23 novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 2 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 4) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 5 2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 6 Procedure 41(b); and 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 8 9 DATED: July 29, 2021 /s/ John A. Mendez 10 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28