(PS) Miner v. Reid

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MADIHA MINER, a.k.a. POCAHONTAS, No. 2:19-cv-01575-TLN-EFB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER PERRI ARLETTE REID, 15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiff Madiha Miner, a.k.a. Pocahontas (“Plaintiff”) proceeding pro se, filed a Motion for Summary Judgement (ECF No. 3) and a “Motion for Judgement” (ECF No. 4) on August 22, 2019. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21 On February 18, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff did not file objections.

25 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); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1 Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 4 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed February 18, 2020 (ECF No. 6), 5 are adopted in full; and 6 2. Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment (ECF No. 3) and for entry of judgment 7 (ECF No. 4) are DENIED.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 DATED: March 16, 2020