IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 16, 2009
BRENT WINTERS, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
DELORES JORDAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Mendez United States District Judge
On August 24, 2009, 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. Plaintiffs filed objections on September 9, 2009, and they were 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.
Further, in light of the August 24, 2009 order dismissing plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff's September 9, 2009 motion for default judgment on their Second Amended Complaint, Dckt. No. 57, plaintiff's September 15, 2009 motion to amend that motion for default judgment, Dckt. No. 60, and plaintiff's September 18, 2009 motion for default judgment on their Second Amended Complaint, Dckt. No. 64, are denied as moot.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed August 24, 2009, are ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiffs' motion to stay this action, Dckt. No. 17, is denied; and
3. Plaintiffs' motions for default judgment on their Second Amended Complaint, and related motion to amend, Dckt. Nos. 57, 60, and 64, are denied.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.