Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01111/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01111-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LIUDMYLA IEGOROVA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

POLYGA LUDMYLA, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:19-cv-1111 KJM DB PS 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 

United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

 On November 4, 2019, 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 fourteen days after service of the findings and 

recommendations. The fourteen-day period has expired, and plaintiff has not filed any objections 

to the findings and recommendations. 

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

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

plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of plaintiff’s current address at all times. 

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

effective. 

Case 2:19-cv-01111-KJM-DB Document 4 Filed 01/23/20 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

 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) (“[D]eterminations 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 November 4, 2019 (ECF No. 3) are adopted 

in full; 

 2. Plaintiff’s June 17, 2019 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is 

denied; 

 3. Plaintiff’s June 17, 2019 complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed without leave to amend; 

and 

 4. This action is dismissed. 

DATED: January 22, 2020. 

Case 2:19-cv-01111-KJM-DB Document 4 Filed 01/23/20 Page 2 of 2