(PS) McCotter v. AZ Mobile Applications, LLC ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TANIKA McCOTTER, No. 2:20-cv-0951 KJM AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 AZ MOBILE APPLICATIONS, LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 18 United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 19 On October 31, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 21 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 23. 22 Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 602\ F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 25 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 31, 2022, are adopted in full; and 3 2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to 4 | comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (b); Local Rule 110. 5 | DATED: January 27, 2023. 6 7 ( ti / ¢ q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28