The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DIANA LEE WALLACH LORRETZ, No. 2:19-cv-01969-TLN-DB
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 MR. AND MRS. JARED KUSHNER,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff Diana Lee Wallach Lorretz (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se with the above-
18 entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local
19 Rule 302(c)(21).
20 On April 2, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were
21 served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings and
22 recommendations were to be filed within thirty days after service of the findings and
23 recommendations. (ECF No. 7.) The thirty-day period has expired, and Plaintiff has not filed
24 any objections to the findings and recommendations.
25 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v.
26 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are
27 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.
28 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1 Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings
2 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.
3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
4 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 2, 2020 (ECF No. 7), are adopted in
5 full;
6 2. Plaintiff’s September 27, 2019 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2)
7 is DENIED;
8 3. Plaintiff’s September 27, 2019 Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without
9 prejudice;
10 4. This action is DISMISSED; and
11 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
13 DATED: July 6, 2020
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28