(PS) Prasad v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROSHNI PRASAD, Case No. 2:22-cv-01505-WBS-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 On March 11, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 19 which were served on the parties, and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 20 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 21 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 22 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 23 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 24 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 supported by 26 the record and by the proper analysis. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED…