IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 20, 2011
CURTIS R. KIMES, PLAINTIFF,
ERIK K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: United States District Judge kimes
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21).
On March 10, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations recommending denial of defendant's motion to dismiss, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days after service of the findings and recommendations. The twenty-one-day period has expired, and no party has filed objections to the findings andrecommendations. In fact, on April 5, 2011, defendant filed an answer to plaintiff's amended complaint.*fn1
Accordingly, the court presumes 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed March 10, 2011 (Doc. No. 32) are adopted in full; and
2. Defendant's June 3, 2010 motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 27) is denied.