(PS) Conerly v. Veracity Research Company

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARINA CONERLY, et al., No. 2:19-cv-1021 KJM KJN 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 VERACITY RESEARCH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs Carina Conerly, M.T., James Conerly, and Marilyn Tillman-Conerly, proceeding 18 pro se, assert claims against defendants Veracity Research Company and one of its employees, 19 Kristy Torain. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On August 25, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 22 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 23 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 29. Plaintiffs 24 objected to the findings and recommendations within the allowed time. ECF No. 30. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are…