Leila Marie Cruz v. Julia Ramzi, et al.

E.D. California

Leila Marie Cruz v. Julia Ramzi, et al.

DecidedSeptember 29, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00985

StatusUnknown

This text of Leila Marie Cruz v. Julia Ramzi, et al. (Leila Marie Cruz v. Julia Ramzi, 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

Leila Marie Cruz v. Julia Ramzi, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEILA MARIE CRUZ, Case No. 2:25-cv-00985-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JULIA RAMZI, 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 August 22, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and 19 recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any 20 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No 21 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 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The proposed findings and recommendations filed August 22, 2025 (ECF No. 4) are 3 ADOPTED; and 4 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See E.D. L.R. 5 183(b). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Date: September 26, 2025 8 9 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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEILA MARIE CRUZ, Case No. 2:25-cv-00985-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JULIA RAMZI, 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 August 22, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and 19 recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any 20 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No 21 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 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The proposed findings and recommendations filed August 22, 2025 (ECF No. 4) are 3 ADOPTED; and 4 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See E.D. L.R. 5 183(b). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Date: September 26, 2025 8 9 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)

Leila Marie Cruz v. Julia Ramzi, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leila-marie-cruz-v-julia-ramzi-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack