(PS) Coleman v. County of Sacramento

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JACQUELINE COLEMAN, No. 2:23-cv-02677-KJM-CKD Plaintiff, v. ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. 16 17 On February 1, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties, and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. That period having passed, plaintiff has not objected 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 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations. As the…