(PS) Iegorova v. Pruglo

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 LIUDMYLA IEGOROVA, No. 2:19-cv-1387-KJM-EFB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 VALENTIN PRUGLO, 15 Defendant. [16] 17 On March 19, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 18 served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.1 20 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 21 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 22 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 23 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 24 Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 25 the record and by the proper analysis. [26] 1 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and recommendations was 27 returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents 28 at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed March 19, 2020, are ADOPTED; 3 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without leave to amend; and 4 3. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 5 DATED: April 23, 2020.