(PS) Brick v. Cretchen-McCoy

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER BRICK, Case No. 2:23-cv-02621-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JENNIFER CRETCHEN-MCCOY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On January 17, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 18 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 19 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 20 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 21 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 22 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 23 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 24 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 25 the record and by the proper analysis. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. The proposed findings and recommendations filed January 17, 2025 (ECF No. 5) are 28 1 ADOPTED; 2 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to comply 3 with court orders, and failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the court’s 4 November 8, 2024 order. (See ECF No. 3) 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Date: February 20, 2025 8 Lally 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