(PS) Sprague v. Hull ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEROME H. SPRAGUE, et al., No. 2:20-cv-2273-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 JUSTICE HARRY E. HULL, PRESIDING JUSTICE VANCE W. RAYE, 15 Defendants. 16 17 On August 16, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 18 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 20 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 21 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 22 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by 23 the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 24 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 26 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 27 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 16, 2021, are ADOPTED; 28 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 5, is granted; 1 3. Plaintiffs’ complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed with prejudice; and 2 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 3 || DATED: September 30, 2021. 4 5 l ti / ¢ q_/ ‘ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28