(PS) Williams v. City of Sacramento ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONTA WILLIAMS, Case No. 2:24-cv-00768-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding without counsel, filed the above captioned civil action. The matter 18 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 19 Rule 302. On August 2, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 which were served on Plaintiff, and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 5.) The time to file objections 22 has passed, and Plaintiff did not file any objections. 23 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 24 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 25 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 26 the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 27 the magistrate judge’s analysis. 28 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations, filed on August 2, 2024 (ECF No. 5), are 3 ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 4); 5 3. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) with leave to amend, 6 except as to Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Claims; 7 and 8 4. This action is REFERED to the assigned magistrate judge for further pretrial 9 matters. 10 | Date: September 5, 2024 i □□ / 2 “ \/ Lo 13 — AWN a Troy L. Nunley> } 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28