The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RAHEEM JONES, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-0864-DJC-JDP (PS)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, et al.,
15
16 Defendants.
17
18
This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
19
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 31, 2025, the Magistrate Judge
20
filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and
21
which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations
22
were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.
23
The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United
24
States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law
25
are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007)
26
(“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the
27
district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds
28
1 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper
2 | analysis.
3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
4 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed October 31, 2025, are
5 | ADOPTED;
6 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to
7 | comply with the court's local rules, and failure to comply with court orders;
8 3. Defendant City of Sacramento’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 26, is denied as
9 | moot; and
10 4. The Clerk of is be directed to close the case.
11
12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
13 | Dated: _December 5, 2025 “Daniel A CoD
Hon. Daniel alabretta
14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28