(PS) Halousek v. Verizon

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SHELIA HALOUSEK, No. 2:22-cv-01728-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER VERIZON, 15 Defendant.

17 On June 12, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on February 5, 2020 (ECF No. 7), and they were considered by the undersigned.

21 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 22 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

23 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 . . . .”).

25 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

27 /// /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed June 12, 2023 (ECF No. 6) are 3 ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. Plaintiffs first amended complaint (ECF No. 4) is DISMISSED without leave to amend; 5 3. Plaintiff's motion to change venue (ECF No. 8) is DENIED as moot; and 6 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

7 | Date: August 4, 2023 8 /) ° “ / bu 10 — a Troy L. Nunley> } United States District Judge