(PS) Coxon v. United States District Court

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 31, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-00792·Unknown

Opinion

BENJAMIN COXON, No. 2:21-cv-00792-KJM-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Defendant. On December 3, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. ///// ///// ///// ] Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed December 3, 2021, are adopted in full; 2. This action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. DATED: January 31, 2022. l ti / ¢ q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(PS) Coxon v. United States District Court, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

(PS) Coxon v. United States District Court ((PS) Coxon v. United States District Court) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Donald Milton Orand v. United States
602 F.2d 207 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)
Arthur Robbins, III v. Tom L. Carey
481 F.3d 1143 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)