1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAHEEM JONES, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-0864-DJC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 31, 2025, the Magistrate Judge 20 filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and 21 which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations 22 were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 23 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 24 States,

(9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law 25 are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey,

(9th Cir. 2007) 26 (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the 27 district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds 28 1 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper 2 | analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed October 31, 2025, are 5 | ADOPTED; 6 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to 7 | comply with the court's local rules, and failure to comply with court orders; 8 3. Defendant City of Sacramento’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 26, is denied as 9 | moot; and 10 4. The Clerk of is be directed to close the case. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _December 5, 2025 “Daniel A CoD Hon. Daniel alabretta 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28