Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Smart

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 12, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00422
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PRIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE No. 2:21-cv-0422 KJM AC COMPANY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 PERRY L. SMART; WANDA CLARK ; 15 and MORGAN JONES FUNERAL HOME, INC., 16 Defendants. 17

18 19 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 20 302(c)(21). 21 On October 1, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 22 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 23 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty one days. ECF No. 27. Neither 24 party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 26 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 27 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 28 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 1 | Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 2 || the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 1, 2021, are adopted in full; 5 2. The motion for default judgment at ECF No. 21 is DENIED without prejudice; and 6 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 7 || proceedings. 8 || DATED: January 11, 2022. 9 10 ( ti / ¢ q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28