1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD WOOD, 12 Plaintiff, No. 2:25-cv-2098-TLN-JDP (P) 13 v. 14 S. SALMONSON, et al., ORDER 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Richard Wood (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil 18 rights 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 October 10, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 21 were served on Plaintiff, and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 5.) This 23 deadline has passed, and no objections have been filed. 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 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 1 | the record and by the proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 10, 2025, (ECF No. 5), are ADOPTED 4 in full; 5 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee, to prosecute, 6 and to comply with court orders for the reasons set forth in the August 6, 2025 order (ECF 7 No. 4); 8 3. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 3), is DENIED as moot; and 9 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. 10 || Date: November 10, 2025 11 12 13 TROY L. NUNLEY 14 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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