(PS) Briggs v Putin, et al

Filing 4

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 2/15/21 ADOPTING 3 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff's September 1, 2020 complaint 1 is DISMISSED without prejudice. This action is dismissed. (Kaminski, H)

Case 2:20-cv-01753-TLN-DB Document 4 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VIKKI LYNN BRIGGS,

12
13
14

No. 2:20-cv-01753-TLN-DB

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

VLADIMIR PUTIN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Vikki Lynn Briggs (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in the above-entitled action.

18

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).

19

On November 5, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

20

which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the

21

findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days after service of the findings and

22

recommendations. (ECF No. 3.) The thirty-day period has expired and Plaintiff has not filed any

23

objections.

24

Although it appears from the docket that Plaintiff’s copy of the findings and

25

recommendations were returned as undeliverable, Plaintiff was properly served. It is the

26

Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the Court apprised of Plaintiff’s current address at all times.

27

Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully

28

effective.
1

Case 2:20-cv-01753-TLN-DB Document 4 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 2
1

The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

2

F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

3

See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

4

The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

5

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed November 5, 2020 (ECF No. 3), are

8
9
10
11
12

ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. Plaintiff’s September 1, 2020 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is
DENIED;
3. Plaintiff’s September 1, 2020 complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without
prejudice; and

13

4. This action is dismissed.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: February 15, 2021

16
17
18

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2