Hernandez v. Singh ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 GERARDO HERNANDEZ, No. 2:22-cv-00137-KJM-JDP 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 MANGAL SINGH, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment was heard before the assigned Magistrate 17 Judge on July 28, 2022. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 18 by Local Rule 302(c)(19) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 19 On November 3, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 21 filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 22 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 23 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 24 reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations 25 of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] 26 court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 27 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 28 ///// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 3, 2022, are adopted in full; 3 2. Plaintiffs motion for default judgment, ECF No. 12, is denied without prejudice; and 4 3. Plaintiff may amend the complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the filed date of this 5 order. Failure to timely amend the complaint may result in dismissal of the case for 6 failure to state a claim. 7 | DATED: January 23, 2023. 8 9 ( 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