1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES CURTIS KERN, No. 2:24-cv-02149-TLN-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 Plaintiff James Curtis Kern (“Plaintiff”) proceeds without counsel in this civil rights 18 action seeking relief under

. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 20, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. This deadline has passed and 23 neither party has filed objections. 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 1 | Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 2 | the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 20, 2025, (ECF No. 7), are 5 ADOPTED in full; 6 2. The case is DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to state a claim; and 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. 8 | DATED: April 7, 2025 9 Ze 11 TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28