(PS) Malik v. Wright

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GHAUS MALIK, No. 2:24-cv-00692-TLN-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ROBERT W. WRIGHT, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).

19 On May 21, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties, and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 14.) The time to file objections has passed, and neither party filed any objections.

23 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 24 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

25 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

28 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations, filed on May 21, 2024 (ECF No. 14), are 3 ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgement (ECF No. 13) is DENIED; and 5 3. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further pr-trial proceedings.

6 || Date: June 28, 2024 7 / “ eck 10 United States District Judge