(PS) Young v. Burlingham

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, et al., No. 2:21-cv-00537-TLN-KJN Plaintiffs, ORDER v.

STEVEN RICHARD BURLINGHAM, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs proceed in this civil action without counsel. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302(c)(21). On August 6, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were filed.1 Accordingly, the Court presumes 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).

1 Plaintiff Daniel Christopher Young filed a purported First Amended Complaint on August 18, 2021, which is signed only by him. (ECF No. 18.) Such a document is untimely, was not filed with leave of Court, and is non-responsive to the Court’s prior orders.

The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, ITIS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 15) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b);

3. Plaintiff Daniel Christopher Young’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is DENIED as moot (ECF No. 17); and

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

Dated: August 30, 2021 yy /)

Sun ( Tasker

Troy L. Nunley> . } United States District Judge