Tamara King v. State of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAMARA KING, Case No. 2:25-cv-1510-DJC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 30, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed 19 findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which 20 contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 21 filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 22 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 23 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law 24 are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) 25 (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the 26 district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds 27 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper 28 1 || analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed July 30, 2025, are 4 ADOPTED; 5 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to 6 comply with court orders, and failure to state a claim for the reasons set 7 forth in the court’s June 5, 2025 order. See ECF No. 3; 8 3. Plaintiff's request for homeless funding, ECF No. 4, is DENIED as moot; and 9 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 10 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || Dated: _September 5, 2025 “Daal A CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28