(PS) Miner v. US Department of Housing

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MADIHA MINER No. 2:19-cv-1623-MCE-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER

13 v. 14 US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 15 Defendant. 16

17 On August 30, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 18 were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. ECF No. 7. No objections were 20 filed. 21 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 22 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 23 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 24 1983). 25 The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 26 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. 27 /// 28 1] // 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 7) are ADOPTED in full; 4 2. The action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the 5 substantiality doctrine; 6 3. Plaintiffs motion to cease and desist (ECF No. 3), motion for judgment (ECF No. 4), 7 motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 5), and motion to proceed in forma pauperis 8 (ECF No. 6) are DENIED as moot; and 9 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1] Dated: October 11, 2019 { / Co 13 MORRISON SEES 14 UNITED STATES DISTRIC □□□ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28