(PS) Mogadem v. State Bar of CA ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LALA MOGADEM, No. 2:23-cv-00981-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On February 6, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 19 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 20 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. That period having passed, plaintiff 21 has not objected to the findings and recommendations. 22 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 23 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 24 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 25 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 26 . . . .”). 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 that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 4) are adopted in full; 3 2. The action is dismissed as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); and 4 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 5 || DATED: March 27, 2024. CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28