(PS)Thacker v. AT&T Mobility, LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID C. THACKER, No. 2:20–cv–0255–KJM–CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF Nos. 55, 56) 14 AT&T CORPORATION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On May 5 and July 29, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 18 (ECF Nos. 53 and 56), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any 19 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No 20 objections were filed. 21 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 23 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 24 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 25 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 26 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF Nos. 53 and 56) are adopted in full; ] 2. The Court construes the joint stipulation of dismissal by plaintiff and defendants 2 AT&T Corporation and AT&T Mobility, LLC (ECF No. 51) as a motion for voluntary 3 dismissal by court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) and grants 4 that motion. The claims against AT&T Corporation and AT&T Mobility, LLC are 5 dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own fees and costs; 6 3. Plaintiffs motion to voluntarily dismiss defendant Diversified Consultants, Inc. (ECF 7 No. 55) is granted. All claims against Diversified Consultants, Inc. are dismissed 8 without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2); and 9 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 10 | DATED: September 14, 2021. 11 12 3 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28