(PS) Padilla v. Bluebond

Opinion

MARIA D. PADILLA, No. 2:23-cv-00236 KJM DB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER Defendant. Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). On May 5, 2023, 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 time for filling objections has expired, and plaintiff has not filed any objections to the findings and recommendations. 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: 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 5, 2023 (ECF No. 3) are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiffs February 8, 2023 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied; 3. The complaint filed on February 8, 2023, is dismissed without prejudice; and 4. This action is dismissed. DATED: August 18, 2023.

1] CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

\padilla0236,jo