Shannon O. Murphy Esq. Sr. dba Sheetmetal & Associates v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 SHANNON O. MURPHY ESQ. SR. DBA SHEETMETAL & ASSOCIATES, 12 No. 2:25-cv-1887-TLN-CSK Plaintiff, [13] v. 14 ORDER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 15 AFFAIRS, 16 Defendant. [17] 18 On September 16, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF 19 No. 3), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 20 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 3). No 21 objections were filed and the time to do so has passed. 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 findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 3), are ADOPTED IN FULL; and 3 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 2), is DENIED; 4 3. Plaintiff's Complaint, (ECF No. 1), is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and 5 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 6 | Date: October 24, 2025 [8] TROY L. NUNLEY ? CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE