Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01208/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01208-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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 

ALEXANDRA FERREIRA DA SILVA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JONATHAN KEVIN ROSS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-1208-KJM-CKD (PS) 

ORDER 

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

On October 28, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which contained 

notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 

days. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff was subsequently granted an extension of time up to and including 

December 17, 2021, to file objections to the October 28, 2021 findings and recommendations. 

(ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 

 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. 

Case 2:21-cv-01208-DJC-CKD Document 37 Filed 07/11/22 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 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 28, 2021 (ECF No. 13) are adopted 

in full. 

2. Plaintiff’s claims against Jonathan Kevin Ross, Department of Homeland Security, 

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and Yuba County Sheriff’s Department are 

DISMISSED, and these defendants are dismissed from the case. 

3. Plaintiff’s motion to stay off removal procedure (ECF No. 3) is DENIED. 

4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 

proceedings. 

DATED: July 11, 2022. 

Case 2:21-cv-01208-DJC-CKD Document 37 Filed 07/11/22 Page 2 of 2