1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SOKUNTHIR MARTIN, No. 2:24-cv-01746 KJM CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 LOUIS DeJOY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action without counsel. The matter was referred to a United 18 States Magistrate Judge under Local Rule 302(c). 19 On February 6, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 21 filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections. 22 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 23

(9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 24 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey,

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 25 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 26 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 27 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 28 //// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The February 6, 2025 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 4) are adopted in full; 3 2. This action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and 4 3. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. 5 || DATED: March 14, 2025.

7 = 4 Y ees STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28