Osterlie

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MILTON D. HARRIS, Case No. 2:22-cv-01537-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 PAUL OSTERLIE, JR., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 18 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 26, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and 19 recommendations herein which were served on Plaintiff, which contained notice that any 20 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No 21 objections were filed. 22 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 23 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 24 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 25 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 26 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings…