1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PATRICK TUBBS, No. 2:22-cv-01913-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,

15 et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 On June 9, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 19 were served on Plaintiff, 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 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 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 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 2 | F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 3 | See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 4 | magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court... .”). 5 | Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 6 | the record and by the proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 9, 2023 (ECF No. 4) are ADOPTED IN 9 | FULL; 10 2. This action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, 11 and failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the April 10, 2023 order (ECF No. 3); and 12 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 13 |Dated: July 11, 2023 14 /) 15 ( | jf / 16 “ MN Vasko 17 Troy L. Nuhlep ] is United States District Judge

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28