1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRISHKA LAMPKIN, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-1204-JAM-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default judgment was submitted for decision without oral 19 argument by the magistrate judge on May 21, 2024. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(19) and

(b)(1). 21 On February 10, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 22 which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations 23 were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 24 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. 26 See Robbins v. Carey,

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 28 Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 1 the record and by the proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 10, 2025, are ADOPTED IN 4 FULL; 5 2. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, ECF No. 77, is DENIED; 6 3. The court DECLINEs to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law 7 claim against defendant Matthew Cortez; 8 4. Plaintiff’s state law claim against defendant Matthew Cortez is DISMISSED without 9 prejudice to refiling in state court; and 10 5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this action. 11 Dated: February 26, 2025 /s/ John A. Mendez 12 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 13 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28