Swanson

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Matthew R. Swanson, No. 1:23-cv-00006-KJM-KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF Nos. 32, 46.) 14 Justin R. Harrison, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On January 17, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF 18 No. 46), which were served on the parties, which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were 20 filed. 21 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 22 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 23 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 24 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 25 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 26 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 27 …