# (PS) Samuelian v. CA Franchise Tax Board

> District Court, E.D. California · January 9, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10016184

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** January 9, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10016184

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 SANDRA C. SAMUELIAN, No. 2:19-cv-01333 KJM AC (PS)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 CA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, et al.,
15 Defendants.
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 November 7, 2019, 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 twenty-one days. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff has not
22 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff has made several irrelevant filings,
23 which are neither an amended complaint nor objections to the findings and recommendations.
24 ECF Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17.
25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,
26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed
27 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law
28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court
1 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be
2 supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
4 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 7, 2019, are adopted in full; and
5 2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to
6 comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110.
7 DATED: January 8, 2020.
8
9
10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10016184. Public record. Not legal advice.