1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SORAYA MARIE RIGOR, No. 2:19-cv-0633 KJM AC (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge under Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 On October 3, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff has not filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

(9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Robbins v. Carey,

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 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 supported by 2 the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 3, 2019, are adopted in full; 5 2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to 6 comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110; and 7 3. The clerk of the court close this case. 8 DATED: November 13, 2019. 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28