The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
On July 25, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (dkt. no. 10) which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On August 6, 2012, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations, 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 motion 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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations (dkt. no. 10) are ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff's motion to remand (dkt. no. 7) is GRANTED.
3. The action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and vacate all dates.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...