(PS) Toepfer v. City of Vallejo

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT TOEPFER, et al., No. 2:24-cv-02366-KJM-CSK 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 22.) 14 CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On October 7, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18 22), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were 20 filed. Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 21 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 22 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 23 1983). 24 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 25 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 26 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 22) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 28 ///// ] 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 2 (ECF No. 3) is DENIED; 3 3. Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice; and 4 4. Plaintiffs are given thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint. 5 | DATED: December 6, 2024.

7 = | ¥ FU/ Fees STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28