(PS) George v. Sohal ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAWRENCE E. GEORGE, No. 2:22–cv–564–KJM–KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 3.) 14 TRANS SOHAL and RAJ FINAF, 15 Defendants. 16 17 On April 12, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3), 18 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 19 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were filed. 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 23 by 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 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 28 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT; 1 3. The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter 2 Jurisdiction; and 3 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 4 | DATED: June 21, 2022. 5 6 l ti / ¢ q_/ 4 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28