(PS) Bell v. Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DELTHENIA BELL, et al., No. 2:20-cv-02539-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On February 25, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 19 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 20 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 43.) No objections were 21 filed. 22 Although it appears from the file that Plaintiffs’ copy of the findings and 23 recommendations was returned, Plaintiffs were properly served. It is the Plaintiffs’ responsibility 24 to keep the Court apprised of the current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), 25 service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 26 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 27 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 28 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 1 | magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court... .”). 2 | Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 3 | the record and by the proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed February 25, 2022, are adopted. 6 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 24), is granted in part, as to Plaintiffs’ down 7 | payment assistance-related claims, and denied in part, as to all other claims. 8 | DATED: March 25, 2022 9 / 10 “ \/ Lu 11 a AWN ok Troy L. Nunley» 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28