(PS)Selck v. Williams

Opinion

MORREY SELCK, No. 2:19-cv-952-JAM-EFB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER OF SUPERVISORS, TOMOKO Defendants. On March 4, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.1 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 1 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed March 4, 2020, are ADOPTED; 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s original complaint (ECF No. 7) is denied as moot; 3. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 6) is sua sponte dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 4. Plaintiff’s motions to amend his complaint (ECF Nos. 11, 17, 21, 23) are denied; 5. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 9 & 18) are denied as moot; and 6. The Clerk is directed to close the case. DATED: April 21, 2020 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE