1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN MARK VAN DEN HEUVEL, No. 2:23-cv-00708-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ADAM CLARK, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under

. 18 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of 19 California local rules. 20 On July 10, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on the parties, and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the 22 time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24

(9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 25 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey,

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. ] Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the findings and 2 || recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiffs responsibility to 3 || keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 4 || of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 10, 2024, ECF No. 18, are adopted 7 | in full. 8 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to 9 || comply with court rules and orders. 10 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 11 | DATED: October 3, 2024.

13 iA VM STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28