(PS) Bank of America v. Cavanagh

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 BANK OF AMERICA, No. 2:19-cv-0898 KJM DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 15 Defendant. 16 17 Defendant is proceeding pro se with the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to 18 a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 19 On October 18, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and 22 recommendations. The time for filing objections has expired, and no party has filed objections to 23 the findings and recommendations. 24 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 26 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 27 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 28 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 1 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 2 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 3 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 18, 2019 (ECF No. 7) are adopted in 6 full; and 7 2. This action is summarily remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court. 8 DATED: January 22, 2020.

22 \bofa0898.jo 23 24 25 26 27 28