1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MORREY SELCK, No. 2:19-cv-952-JAM-EFB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO BOARD

OF SUPERVISORS, TOMOKO

15 WILLIAMS, 16 Defendants. 17 18 On March 4, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 19 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 20 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.1 21 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v. United 22 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 23 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 24 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 25 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 26 1 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 27 recommendations was 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 28 of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed March 4, 2020, are ADOPTED; 3 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s original complaint (ECF No. 7) is denied as 4 moot; 5 3. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 6) is sua sponte dismissed for lack of 6 subject matter jurisdiction; 7 4. Plaintiff’s motions to amend his complaint (ECF Nos. 11, 17, 21, 23) are denied; 8 5. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 9 & 18) are denied as moot; and 9 6. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 10 DATED: April 21, 2020 11 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____ 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28