IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 13, 2009
SAMUEL D. BATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.
On December 18, 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. Petitioners filed objections on January 5, 2009, respondents filed a response thereto on January 8, 2009 and petitioners filed a reply on January 12, 2009. The objections, response and reply have been considered by the undersigned.
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 proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed December 18, 2008, are ADOPTED;
2. The petition to quash is denied;
3. Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition is granted; and,
4. The Clerk is directed to close the case.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.