Opinion
2:21-cv-1660 KJM AC PS
12-13-2021
DANIEL CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN RICHARD BURLINGHAM, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21).
On October 15, 2021 the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within 21 days. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the findings and recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[Determinations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed October 15, 2021, are adopted in full; and
2. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.