(PS) Iegorova v. Ludmyla

Opinion

LIUDMYLA IEGOROVA, No. 2:19-cv-1111 KJM DB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER Defendant. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). On November 4, 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 days after service of the findings and recommendations. The fourteen-day period has expired, and 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 as undeliverable, plaintiff was properly served. It is the 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. 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 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 4, 2019 (ECF No. 3) are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff’s June 17, 2019 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied; 3. Plaintiff’s June 17, 2019 complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed without leave to amend; and 4. This action is dismissed. DATED: January 22, 2020.