1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATASHA J. RYAN, Case No. 2:25-cv-0925-DJC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 VINCENT CONTRERAS, III, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 23, 2025, the Magistrate Judge 19 filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and 20 which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations 21 were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 22 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 23 States,

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

(9th Cir. 2007) 25 (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the 26 district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds 27 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper 28 analysis. 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed June 23, 2025, are 4 ADOPTED; 5 2. Plaintiff's second amended complaint, ECF No. 6, is DISMISSED without 6 leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim and for want of 7 jurisdiction; and 8 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 | Dated: _July 25, 2025 Donal J CL bratter— Hon. Daniel alabretta 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28