(PS) Lugo v. Durham ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREN SUE LUGO, No. 2:22-cv-00646 KJM DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ADRIANA DURHAM, THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM, JAMES F. 15 LEWIN, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 On March 31, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and 23 recommendations. The time for filling objections has expired, and plaintiff has not filed any 24 objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 27 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 1 | ....°). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed March31, 2023 (ECF No. 6) are adopted in 5 | full; and 6 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. 7 || DATED: July 27, 2023. 10 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28