Saavedra v. Mackey ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARY JO SAAVEDRA, Case No. 2:21-cv-01587-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RIDDELL MACKEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment was submitted for decision without oral 18 argument by the magistrate judge on August 7, 2023. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(19) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 On February 12, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 22 filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 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 ///// 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 filed February 12, 2024, are adopted in full; 5 2. Plaintiffs motion for default judgment, ECF No. 46, is denied without prejudice; and 6 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 7 || proceedings. 8 | DATED: March 21, 2024. 9 10 "1 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28