(PS) G.M. v. Poole

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 G.M. et al., No. 2:17-cv-02415-TLN-CKD 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. ORDER 13 ADAM POOLE, et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 17 Plaintiffs G.M., C.M., and A.M., through their guardian ad litem, Kristina Comphor, are 18 currently proceeding pro se in this action. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 On July 10, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 22 filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 64.) The time to file objections has passed, and neither 23 party filed any objections. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 27 the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 28 the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 2 1. The findings and recommendations, filed on July 10, 2024 (ECF No. 64), are 3 ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute. 5 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 6 | Date: August 5, 2024 4

10 Troy L. Nuhlep ] ul United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28