(PS) Sullivan v. Walmart/Spark Inc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY L. SULLIVAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-01397-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 WALMART/SPARK, Inc., 15 Defendant. 16 17 On March 15, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 18 which were served on Plaintiff, and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 5.) The time to 20 file objections has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed any objections. 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…