(PS) DeCheri Hafer v. Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

Opinion

DeCHERI HAFER, No. 2:22-cv-01370-KJM-CKD (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER REVELOPMENT AGENCY, et al. Defendants.

On January 10, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. That period having passed, plaintiff has not objected to the findings and recommendations. Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is a plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 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 HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 11) are adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiffs request for temporary restraining order is DENIED as moot. DATED: April 25, 2023. ( ti / ¢ q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1]