Saechao v. Prime Recovery LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MEY SAECHAO, No. 2:19-cv-1723 KJM DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 PRIME RECOVERY LLC a/k/a PRIME RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, 15 16 Defendant. 17 18 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 19 302(c)(19). On May 26, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations were to be filed within thirty days after service of the findings and 22 recommendations. ECF No. 13. The thirty-day period has expired, and plaintiff has not filed any 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 | ....°). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 26, 2020 (ECF No. 13) are adopted in 5 | full; 6 2. Plaintiff's November 15, 2019 motion for default judgment (ECF No. 10) is granted; 7 3. Judgment is entered against defendant Prime Recovery, LLC; 8 4. Defendant Prime Recovery, LLC is ordered to pay plaintiff $2,000 in statutory 9 || damages; 10 5. Plaintiffs request for attorney’s fees and costs is denied without prejudice to renewal; 11 || and 12 6. This case is closed. 13 | DATED: March 24, 2021.

15 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28