Sepulveda v. Gray

Opinion

RICHARD SEPULVEDA, Case No. 2:23-cv-2769-WBS-JDP Plaintiff, v. ORDER Defendant. Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment was heard before the assigned Magistrate Judge on June 6, 2024. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(19) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On October 9, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 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 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 9, 2024, are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiffs motion for default judgment, ECF No. 8, is granted; 3. Default judgment is entered against defendant on plaintiff's ADA and Unruh Act claims; 4. Plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice; 5. Plaintiff is granted an injunction requiring defendant to provide an accessible parking space; 6. Plaintiff is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $3,120.50; and 7. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Dated: November 18, 2024 bi bleaw~ a. (ht. □□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE