1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH RAOUF, No. 2:25-cv-1724 DJC CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNKNOWN, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. The matter was referred to a 18 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 19 302. 20 On August 6, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any 22 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 23 days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 25 States,

(9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law 26 are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist.,

, 454 27 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and 28 recommendations to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s 1 | analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 6, 2025, are adopted in full; 4 2. This matter is dismissed without prejudice; and 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 6 j IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 | Dated: _ October 2, 2025 “Dane J CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta ? UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28