(PS) Love v. Tri-Counties Bank

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARY LOVE, No. 2:24-cv-01823-TLN-CSK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. TRI-COUNTIES BANK, 15 Defendant.

17 On February 7, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 16) On February 21, 2025, and February 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

21 (ECF Nos. 17, 19). On February 27, 2025, Defendant filed a reply to Plaintiff’s objections. (ECF No. 19.) The Court has considered these filings in its review of the findings and recommendations.

24 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 27 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law.

1 | See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s || conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 3 | 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 proper analysis.

5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 16), are ADOPTED IN FULL; 7 2. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her opposition to the motion to dismiss, (ECF 8 No. 18), is DENIED as moot; 9 3. Plaintiff's Complaint, (ECF No. 1), is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and 10 4. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case.

11 | DATED: March 11, 2025 15 TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE