(PS) Eggman v. Miller

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID JAMES EGGMAN, No. 2:20-cv-0323 KJM DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RUSS MILLER, ESQ,

15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 18 United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 19 On April 9, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 20 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations were to be filed within thirty days after service of the findings and 22 recommendations. The thirty-day period has expired, and plaintiff has not filed any objections to 23 the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007)…