Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01939/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01939-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael A. Jacques
Defendant
Placer County Department of Child Support Services
Defendant
Eric Scharfenberger
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC SCHARFENBERGER, an

individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL A. JACQUES, an individual,

and in official capacity as a Child Support

Commissioner; PLACER COUNTY

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT

SERVICES, corporation and municipality,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-01939-TLN-EFB

ORDER

Plaintiff Eric Scharfenberger (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this 

civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On February 6, 2020, 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. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff has not filed 

any 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 Plaintiff’s responsibility to 

Case 2:18-cv-01939-TLN-EFB Document 4 Filed 03/09/20 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

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. 

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

1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 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 February 6, 2020 (ECF No. 3), are adopted

in full;

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 6, 2020 

Case 2:18-cv-01939-TLN-EFB Document 4 Filed 03/09/20 Page 2 of 2