(PS) Hansen v. Arkley

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL JOHN HANSEN, et al., No. 2:20-cv-2436-KJM-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROBIN ARKLEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 18 302(c)(19). On June 10, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 19 contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within 20 fourteen days. No party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 21 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 22 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 23 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 24 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 25 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 26 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 27 ///// 28 ///// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 10, 2021 (ECF No. 33), are adopted in 3 full; 4 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16) is granted and plaintiffs complaint 5 (ECF No. 1) is dismissed without leave to amend; and 6 3. The Clerk’s Office is directed to close this case. 7 | DATED: November 7, 2021. 8 9 ( ti / ¢ q_/ 10 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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