Opinion
ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
On January 8, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.
Although it appears from the file that defendants' copies of the findings and recommendations were returned, they were properly served. It is a party's responsibility to keep the court apprised of a current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.
Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed January 8, 2015, are ADOPTED; and
2. The above-captioned case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Sacramento.
Also, on January 27, 2015, defendant Constance Maria Agee filed a copy of a complaint she apparently filed in state court. ECF No. 6. The document, however, is not responsive to the January 8 findings and recommendations.