Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Smart

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-00422 KJM-AC COMPANY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 PERRY L. SMART; WANDA CLARK; 15 and MORGAN JONES FUNERAL HOMES, INC., 16 ORDER Defendants. 17

18 PERRY L. SMART, 19 Cross-Claimant, 20 v. 21 WANDA CLARK and MORGAN JONES 22 FUNERAL HOMES, INC., 23 Cross- Defendants. 24

25 26 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 27 United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 28 1 On September 30, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 2 || were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 3 || findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 45. Neither 4 || party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 5 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 6 || 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 7 || denovo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 8 | by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 9 | ....”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 10 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 30, 2022, are adopted in full; and 13 2. Perry Smart’s November 24, 2021 motion for default judgment (ECF No. 36) is 14 | GRANTED. Smart’s request for a hearing (ECF No. 43) is DENIED as MOOT. 15 | DATED: December 6, 2022. 16

13 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28