Evers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRANDON MICHAEL GAMINO, No. 2:23-cv-3036-TLN-SCR Plaintiff, v. ORDER JONE EVERS, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On October 16, 2024, the magistrate judge filed amended findings and recommendations, which were served on Plaintiff, and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. The deadline has passed, and no objections have been filed. The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate]…