(PS) Lugo v. Durham

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KAREN SUE LUGO, No. 2:22-cv-00646 KJM DB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADRIANA DURHAM, THE

MORTGAGE LAW FIRM, JAMES F.

LEWIN, Defendants. 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). On March 31, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and recommendations. The time for filling objections has expired, and plaintiff has not filed any objections to the findings and recommendations. The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481…