1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD D. CASITY, No. 2:24-cv-2449-DC-CSK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 AMADOR COUNTY, et al., (ECF No. 7) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief under

1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 21, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff did 23 not file objections to the findings and recommendations. 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having 27 reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 28 and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 7) are adopted in full; 3 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 6 | Dated: _ July 25, 2025 RVI os Dena Coggins 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28