(PS) Rigor v. Sacramento LGBT Community Center

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 SOROYA MARIA RIGOR, No. 2:24–cv–36–DJC–KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 3.) CENTER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On February 28, 2024 the magistrate judge filed findings and 18 recommendations (ECF No. 3), which were served on the parties and which contained 19 notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed 20 within fourteen (14) days. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the court presumes 21 that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 22 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See 23 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 24 The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause 25 appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and 26 recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 28 2. The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 1 3. Plaintiff is warned that continued failure to heed the Court's guidance on 2 amendment, and continued abuse of the court's process, may result in a 3 vexatious litigant order being entered against her that could restrict her ability 4 to file new cases in this court; and 5 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 6 j IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 | Dated: _March 29, 2024 “Dane A Ch brett Hon. Daniel alabretta ? UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28