Mroczek

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RAMON L. ESPINOZA, Case No. 2:23-cv-00228-TLN-JDP 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 RICK MROCZECK, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 17 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On January 17, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and 18 recommendations herein which were served on the parties, and which contained notice that any 19 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. The time 20 to file objections has passed, and no objections were filed. 21 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 22 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 23 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 24 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 25 Having reviewed…