(PS) Jones v. Velocity Technology Solutions ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GARRISON JONES, No. 2:19-cv-02374-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 VELOCITY TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On September 9, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 19 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 20 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on 21 September 22, 2022, and defendant filed a response to the objections on October 3, 2022; both 22 filings have been considered by the undersigned. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 25 d novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by 26 the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 9, 2022, are adopted; 3 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 109, is granted; 4 3. This action is dismissed for failure to comply with court orders; 5 4. All other pending motions, ECF Nos. 89, 120, 122, & 123, are denied as moot; and 6 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 7 || DATED: October 11, 2022. 8 9 l ti / ¢ q_/ 10 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28