1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDRA MARIE CHAPA, No. 2:19-cv-01200-JAM-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 PLACER COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 On April 1, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF. No. 12) 18 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On April 10, 2020, plaintiff 20 filed objections to the proposed findings and recommendations (ECF. No. 13) which have been 21 considered by the court. 22 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 23 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 24 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see 25 also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed 26 findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and 27 decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th 28 1 Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi 2 Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 3 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 4 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed findings and recommendations in full. 5 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 6 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed April 1, 2020, are ADOPTED; 7 2. The action is dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); and 8 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 9 DATED: May 26, 2020 10 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____ 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 13

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