(PS) Cohen v. Coleman ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 County Of Sacramento, et al., No. 2:23-cv-02666-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 Jacqueline Coleman, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On February 1, 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. 3) are adopted in full; 3 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT; 4 3. The action is remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 5 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to remove the County of Sacramento from this action 6 and recaption this action “Cynthia Cohen v. Jaqueline Coleman, et al.”; and 7 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 8 | DATED: March 27, 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