(PS) Van den Heuvel v. Cissna ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL, No. 2:21-cv-01342 KJM CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CISSNA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c). 19 On January 26, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 21 filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff was subsequently granted an extension until March 18, 2022. 22 Though plaintiff has filed various documents, ECF Nos. 25 & 31, which the court has reviewed, 23 he has not objected to the substance of the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 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 issued January 26, 2022 are adopted in full; 5 2. The court denies plaintiff's requests. ECF Nos. 25 & 31; 6 3. This action is dismissed with prejudice; and 7 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 8 | DATED: July 13, 2022. 9 10 ( ti / ¢ q_/ "1 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28