(PS) Williams v. Chime Solutions, Inc

District Court, E.D. California·Decided April 30, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-02299·Unknown

Opinion

TYWON WILLIAMS, No. 2:20–cv–2299–KJM–KJN PS Plaintiff, ORDER v. (ECF No. 5.) CHIME SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants. On March 10, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 5), which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were filed. The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. ///// ///// ] The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 5) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. DATED: April 29, 2021. ( ti / ¢ q_/ "1 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(PS) Williams v. Chime Solutions, Inc, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

(PS) Williams v. Chime Solutions, Inc ((PS) Williams v. Chime Solutions, Inc) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Donald Milton Orand v. United States
602 F.2d 207 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)
Arthur Robbins, III v. Tom L. Carey
481 F.3d 1143 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)