(PS) Murphy v. Antioch Police Dept.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANNON O. MURPHY, Sr., Case No. 2:23-cv-01458-DJC-JDP (PS)

12 Plaintiff,

13 v.

ORDER

14 ANTIOCH POLICE DEPARTMENT, 15 Defendants. 16 17 On January 24, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 18 recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained 19 notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed 20 within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 21 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 22 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law 23 are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) 24 (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the 25 district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds 26 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper 27 analysis. 28 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. …