(PS) Singh v. City of Elk Grove

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAJ SINGH, Case No. 2:24-cv-2455-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CITY OF ELK GROVE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On October 18, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 18 were served on plaintiff, and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Findings & Recommendations, ECF 20 No. 3. Plaintiff filed objections on October 29, 2024, and they were considered by the 21 undersigned. Obj., ECF No. 4. 22 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 23 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 24 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 25 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 26 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 27 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 28 ///// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed October 18, 2024, are adopted; 3 2. Plaintiffs complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed without leave to amend for lack of 4 || subject matter jurisdiction; and 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 6 This order resolves ECF No. 1. 7 | DATED: January 2, 2025.

9 = VM □□ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28