Saavedra

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARY JO SAAVEDRA, Case No. 2:21-cv-01587-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RIDDELL MACKEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment was submitted for decision without oral 18 argument by the magistrate judge on August 7, 2023. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(19) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 On February 12, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 22 filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 25 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the…