(PS) Rigor v. Mercy Pedlers

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SORAYA MARIA RIGOR, Case No. 2:23-cv-2048-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MERCY PEDLARS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On May 9, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 18 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.1 20 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 21 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 22 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 23 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 24 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 25 the record and by the proper analysis. 26 1 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 27 recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 28 of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 9, 2025, are adopted in full; 3 2. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7) is DISMISSED without leave to 4 amend for failure to state a claim; and 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Date: June 17, 2025 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28