(PS) Robinson v. Placer County ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELLEN ROSE ROBINSON, et al., No. 2:21-cv-02037-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 PLACER COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On July 13, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 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. (ECF No. 32.) No objections were 20 filed.1 21 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 22 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 23 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 24 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 supported by 26 1 Although it appears from the file that Plaintiffs’ copy of the findings and 27 recommendations were returned, Plaintiffs were properly served. It is Plaintiffs’ responsibility to keep the Court apprised of their current addresses at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), 28 service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 | the record and by the proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 3 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed July 13, 2022 (ECF No. 32) are ADOPTED 4 | in full; 5 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to 6 | comply with court orders; 7 3. All pending motions (ECF Nos. 7, 10, 13, 16, 23, 24) are DENIED as moot; and 8 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 9 | DATED: September 14, 2022 0 /) Sal Tooke B Troy L. Nunley» . } United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28