(PS) Williams v. City of Sacramento

Opinion

DONTA WILLIAMS, Case No. 2:24-cv-00768-TLN-JDP Plaintiff, v. ORDER Defendants. Plaintiff, proceeding without counsel, filed the above captioned civil action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 2, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on Plaintiff, and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 5.) The time to file objections has passed, and Plaintiff did not file any objections. 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. /// Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations, filed on August 2, 2024 (ECF No. 5), are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 4); 3. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) with leave to amend, except as to Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Claims; and 4. This action is REFERED to the assigned magistrate judge for further pretrial matters. Date: September 5, 2024 i □□ / “ \/ Lo — AWN a Troy L. Nunley> } United States District Judge