Sepulveda

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICHARD SEPULVEDA, Case No. 2:23-cv-2769-WBS-JDP Plaintiff, v. ORDER DANIEL SHERMAN GRAY, Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment was heard before the assigned Magistrate 18 Judge on June 6, 2024. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 Local Rule 302(c)(19) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 On October 9, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which contained notice to the parties 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 States, 602 24 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 25 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 26 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court .…