(PS) Wilt v. Pfizer, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID WILT, Case No. 2:24-cv-2058-DJC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 PFIZER, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 On May 20, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 18 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any 19 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 20 days. No objections were filed. 21 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 22 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law 23 are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) 24 (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the 25 district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds 26 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper 27 analysis. 28 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed May 20, 2025, are 3 ADOPTED; 4 2. Plaintiff's amended complaint, ECF No. 4, is DISMISSED without leave to 5 amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 | Dated: _ June 24, 2025 “Dane A Ch brett Hon. Daniel alabretta " UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28