(PS) Harley v. County of Contra Costa

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 RAOUL E HARLEY JR., Case No. 2:24-cv-3059-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 15 Defendant. 16 17 On February 11, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 18 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 19 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff Raoul E Harley Jr. 20 (“Plaintiff”) filed objections on February 24, 2025, and they were considered by the undersigned. 21 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 22 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 23 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 24 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 supported by 26 the record and by the proper analysis. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed February 11, 2025 (ECF No. 6) are 1 | adopted; 2 2. Plaintiffs first amended complaint (ECF No. 4) is DISMISSED without leave to 3 | amend for lack of jurisdiction; 4 3. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 7) is DENIED; and 5 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 7 | Date: March 28, 2025 8 9 10 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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