(PS) Coleman v. County of Sacramento

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACQUELINE COLEMAN, No. 2:23-cv-02677-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On February 1, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 19 were served on the parties, and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 20 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. That period having passed, plaintiff 21 has not objected to the findings and recommendations. 22 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 23 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 24 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 25 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 26 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations. 27 As the…