“[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”
How later courts described this case
- “[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ALEXANDRA M. CHAPA, No. 2:23-cv-01565-KJM-CKD (PS)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 NATOMAS PARK MASTER
ASSOCIATION BOARD OF
15 DIRECTORS, et al.,
16 Defendants.
17
18
19 On October 25, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which
20 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and
21 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. That period having passed, plaintiff
22 has not objected to the findings and recommendations.
23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,
24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed
25 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law
26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court
27 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be
28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 7) are adopted in full;
3 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and
4 3. The clerk of court is directed to CLOSE this case.
5 | DATED: December 20, 2023.
CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28