Starbucks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL, No. 2:24-cv-00009 KJM AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STARBUCKS COFFEE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 18 United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 19 On January 29, 2024 the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 21 and recommendations were to be filed within 21 days. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff has not filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations, though plaintiff did file a document on 23 March 21, 2024. ECF No. 8. The document appears to be a proposed judgment. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143,…