1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY TEVIS, et al., No. 2:23-cv-02054-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action without counsel. The matter was referred to a 18 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c). 19 On January 17, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 which contained notice to Plaintiffs that any objections to the findings and recommendations were 21 to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiffs have filed objections. (ECF No. 7.) 22 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. 24 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The Court 25 reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 26 by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 6) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 3 2. The action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 4 3. Plaintiffs’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 3) are DENIED as 5 moot; and 6 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 7 Date: March 1, 2024 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28