(PS) Gray v. City of Roseville

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 BOBBY DEAN GRAY III, Case No. 2:25-cv-00535-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, et al., 15 Defendants. [16] 17 Plaintiff initiated this civil action without counsel. Accordingly, the matter was referred 18 to a United States Magistrate Judge under Local Rule 302. 19 On April 4, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 20 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations 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 States, 602 23 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 24 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 25 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 26 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 27 the record and by the proper analysis. 28 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed April 4, 2025, are ADOPTED; 3 2. This case is sua sponte REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California in 4 | and for the County of Placer; and 5 3. Plaintiff's motions to remand (ECF Nos. 3, 11), and to stay, (ECF No. 7), are DENIED 6 | as moot. 7 | ITIS SO ORDERED. 8 | Date: April 30, 2025 [10] 11 7, [12] B TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE