IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 2, 2008
SHIRLEY V. REMMERT, PLAINTIFF,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SUPERIOR COURT IN SAN MATEO COUNTY, HON. QUENTIN L. KOPP, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
On August 7, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff timely filed objections and a proposed second amended complaint on August 20, 2008,*fn1 which have been considered by the district judge.
This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. 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 applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Findings and Recommendations in full. Plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint -- which seeks to name two additional superior court judges, the consent to suit of the previously named governmental entities, and damages rather than injunctive relief -- fails to establish this court's federal subject matter jurisdiction for the same reasons set forth in the Findings and Recommendations.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 7, 2008, are ADOPTED; and
2. This action is dismissed without leave to amend.