(PS) Douglas v. Paramount Global ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANJON MAREQUIS DOUGLAS, No. 2:23-cv-02509 KJM AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 PARAMOUNT GLOBAL, 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 November 2, 2023 the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 21 and recommendations were to be filed within 21 days. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff has not filed 22 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 November 2, 2023, are adopted in full. 3 2. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED but the 4 || complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice because it fails to state a claim upon which 5 || relief can be granted. It is further ordered that leave to amend is not granted because amendment 6 || would be futile. 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 8 || DATED: January 29, 2024. 9 10 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28