(PS) Biggins v. Winn Companies LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 27, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02736
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARNAE BIGGINS, No. 2:24-cv-02736-TLN-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 WINN COMPANIES, LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Charnae Biggins (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. 18 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 19 On December 11, 2024 the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings 21 and recommendations were to be filed within 21 days. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff has not filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 24 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 25 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 26 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 27 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed December 11, 2024 (ECF No. 5), are 3 | ADOPTED IN FULL; and 4 2. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to 5 || comply with the Court’s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Date: January 24, 2025 8 10 TROY L. NUNLEY 11 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28