The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
On July 13, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (Dkt. No. 22) herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On July 27, 2011, plaintiff filed objections to the proposed findings and recommendations (Dkt. No. 23), which have been considered by the court.
This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 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); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). 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 July 13, 2011, are ADOPTED;
2. Defendants Elaine Van Beveren and the Law Offices of Elaine Van Beveren's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 13) is granted in part and denied in part; and
3. Plaintiff's claims for relief brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged against defendants Elaine Van Beveren and the Law Offices of Elaine Van Beveren are dismissed with prejudice.
4. Within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a "Second Amended Complaint" as more specifically provided in the magistrate judge's Order and Findings and Recommendations.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...