(PS) Williams v. City of Sacramento

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONTA WILLIAMS, Case No. 2:24-cv-00768-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On May 1, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 18 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections, and they were 20 considered by the undersigned. 21 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 22 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 23 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 24 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 25 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 26 the record and by the proper analysis. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed May 1, 2025, are adopted in full; 1 2. The second amended complaint (ECF No. 9) is DISMISSED without leave to amend 2 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and 3 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Date: June 17, 2025 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28