(PS)Young v. Burlingham

Opinion

DANIEL CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, No. 2:22–cv–0590–JAM-CKD PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER STEVEN RICHARD BURLINGHAM, et (ECF Nos. 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14) al., Defendants.

On June 29, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 13), which were served on the 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.1 Accordingly, 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). ///

1 Although plaintiff continues to file motions in this case, the court’s order to show cause and findings and recommendations issued in this case were both returned as undeliverable after service was attempted at plaintiff’s address of record. (Dkt. Entries 5/16/2022 & 7/8/2022.) Because it is plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court advised of his current address, L.R. 183(b), and because it is clear that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case, dismissal is warranted despite his non-receipt of the court’s orders. 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. 13) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. This case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as barred by res judicata; 3. Plaintiff’s miscellaneous motions (ECF Nos. 5, 6, 8, 12, 14) are DENIED both as moot and as procedurally improper; and 4. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case. DATED: July 26, 2022 /s/ John A. Mendez THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE