(PS) Iegorova v. Becerra

Opinion

LIUDMYLA IEGOROVA, No. 2:19-cv-01553-TLN-KJN Plaintiff, ORDER v. Defendant. Plaintiff Liudmyla Iegorova, proceeding pro se, commenced this action and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1–2.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 2, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the findings and recommendations. Although it appears from the docket that Plaintiff’s copy of the Findings and Recommendations were returned, Plaintiff was properly served. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the Court apprised of Plaintiff’s current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. Accordingly, 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 3) are adopted in full; 2. The action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the substantiality doctrine and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3); 3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot; and 4. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to close this case. Dated: October 29, 2019