(PS) Boiteau v. People of the State of CA

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD MARC BOITEAU, No. 2:23-cv-0146-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 On June 2, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 19 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 20 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 21 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 22 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 23 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 24 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 25 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 26 the record and by the proper analysis. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed June 2, 2025, are ADOPTED; 1 2. This action is sua sponte dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for the 2 reasons set forth in the April 24, 2025 order. 3 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Date: July 2, 2025 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28