United States District Court, E.D. California
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
On February 8, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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. Those findings and recommendations were adopted in full by order filed June 17, 2013. ECF No. 4. On June 19, 2013, plaintiff filed a request for a sixty-day extension of time in which to file his objections. That request was granted on June 28, 2013. ECF No. 6. Accordingly, the court vacated the June 17 order adopting the findings and recommendations and gave plaintiff 60 days to file his objections. Plaintiff timely filed objections on July 3, 2013, and the court has now considered them.
This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which plaintiff has objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). 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 Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
As the court originally noted in the order of June 17, 2013, the magistrate judge did not properly evaluate the claims against defendant Hoffman and so the court declined to adopt the findings and recommendations as to her. Plaintiff's objections do not alter this conclusion.
In sum, the court adopts the Findings and Recommendations except with respect to defendant Hoffman.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 8, 2013, are adopted in part and the claims against defendant Wood are dismissed;
2. The Findings and Recommendations are not adopted as to defendant Hoffman and the case is referred back to the magistrate judge for screening as to this defendant; this court expresses no opinion on the ...