(PS) Young v. Burlingham ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, No. 2:21-cv-1660 KJM AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STEVEN RICHARD BURLINGHAM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 On October 15, 2021 the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within 21 days. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff has not filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 25 recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to 26 keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 27 of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 28 ///// ] The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 2 || F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 3 || See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 4 || magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court... .”). 5 || Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 6 || the record and by the proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 15, 2021, are adopted in full; and 9 2. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. 10 | DATED: December 13, 2021. 1] 12 ee B CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28