Raheem Jones, et al. v. City of Sacramento Board of Supervisors, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAHEEM JONES, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-0864-DJC-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER CITY OF SACRAMENTO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, et al., 15 Defendants. 17 18 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 31, 2025, the Magistrate Judge 20 filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and 21 which contained notice 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 24 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law 25 are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) 26 (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the 27 district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds…