I Chi Wu v. Jamie Pesce, et al.

E.D. California

I Chi Wu v. Jamie Pesce, et al.

DecidedApril 14, 2026

Docket2:25-cv-02175

StatusUnknown

This text of I Chi Wu v. Jamie Pesce, et al. (I Chi Wu v. Jamie Pesce, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

I Chi Wu v. Jamie Pesce, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 I CHI WU, Case No. 2:25-cv-2175-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JAMIE PESCE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 12, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings 19 and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that 20 any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF 21 No. 8.) No objections were filed. 22 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 23 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 24 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 25 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 supported by 27 the record and by the proper analysis. 28 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: ] 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed December 19, 2025, ECF No. 2 | 8, are adopted in full. 3 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely complete service of 4 | process. 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 6 | Date: April 13, 2026 8 9 TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 I CHI WU, Case No. 2:25-cv-2175-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JAMIE PESCE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 12, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings 19 and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that 20 any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF 21 No. 8.) No objections were filed. 22 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 23 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 24 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 25 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 supported by 27 the record and by the proper analysis. 28 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: ] 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed December 19, 2025, ECF No. 2 | 8, are adopted in full. 3 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely complete service of 4 | process. 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 6 | Date: April 13, 2026 8 9 TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

I Chi Wu v. Jamie Pesce, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/i-chi-wu-v-jamie-pesce-et-al-caed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack