(PS) Oliver v. DDS Legal Support Systems Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY OLIVER, Case No. 2:24-cv-0514-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DDS LEGAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 On January 28, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 19 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 20 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 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 de 23 novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by 24 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 that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed January 28, 2025, are ADOPTED; 3 2. Plaintiffs motion to voluntarily dismiss, ECF No. 100, is GRANTED; 4 3. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 41(a)(2); 6 4. All pending motions, ECF Nos. 53, 59, 70, 82, 83, 86, 113, & 114, are DENIED as 7 moot; and 8 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this action. 9 || DATED: February 25, 2025.

11 —_ □ VW □ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28