(PS) Douglas v. Universal Music Group

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANJON MARQUIS DOUGLAS, No. 2:23-cv-02567-KJM-KJN (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 On February 5, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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 (14) days. That period having passed, plaintiff 21 has not objected to the findings and recommendations. 22 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 23 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 24 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 25 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 26 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 27 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 28 ///// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3) are adopted in full; 3 2. The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 4 3. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT; 5 and 6 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 7 || DATED: March 21, 2024. 10 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28