(PS) Peden v. Bernard

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WESLEY ELVIS PEDEN,, No. 2:23-cv-02268-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GEORGE BERNARD, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 18 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On February 5, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 which were served on the parties, and contained notice that any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. The time to file objections has passed, 22 and neither party filed objections. 23 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 24 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 25 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 26 1983). The Court reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes 27 that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed findings and recommendations in full. 28 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 3 2. The action is DISMISSED with prejudice; 4 3. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot; and 5 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 6 | Date: March 1, 2024 7 () /

3 □ / Vso 9 Troy L. Nuhley> United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28