(PS) Clark v. Velasquez ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FELICIA CLARK, No. 2:22-cv-00978-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MARIA VELASQUEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On June 9, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 18 served on plaintiff, and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.1 20 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 21 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 22 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by 23 the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 24 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 26 1 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 27 recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 28 of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. ] Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 9, 2023, are adopted in full; 3 2. This action is dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, 4 | and failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the December 19, 2022 order; and 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 6 | DATED: July 27, 2023. 9 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28