1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON MICHAEL GAMINO, No. 2:23-cv-3036-TLN-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JONE EVERS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 18 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 19 On October 16, 2024, the magistrate judge filed amended findings and recommendations, 20 which were served on Plaintiff, and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. The deadline has passed, and no 22 objections have been filed. 23 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

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

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 26 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”) 27 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 28 the record and by the proper analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The amended findings and recommendations, filed at ECF No. 9, are ADOPTED in full; 3 2. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, filed at ECF No. 7, is DISMISSED without 4 further leave to amend; and 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 6 | DATE: December 5, 2024 4 Lasley 9 10 TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28