(PS) Whittman v. Chico Court

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 MARVIN WHITTMAN, No. 2:24-cv-01575-DJC-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 10) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was 18 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 19 On February 3, 3035, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 20 recommendations (ECF No. 10), which were served on the parties and which 21 contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 22 filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the court 23 presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 24 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de 25 novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 26 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to 27 be supported by the record and the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. 28 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 10) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 3 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 4 Procedure 41(b); and 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 6 j IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 | Dated: _March 21, 2025 “Darel A CDbnetto 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