Filed: Mar. 23, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 23, 2016
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . On November 2, 2015, 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 fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on November 16, 2015, 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.
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . On November 2, 2015, 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 fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on November 16, 2015, 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. 6..
More
ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
On November 2, 2015, 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 fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on November 16, 2015, 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 Sch. 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 November 2, 2015, are adopted;
2. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 39, 42) is denied.
