Michael M. v. Saul, CV 18-8087-AG (KK). (2020)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20200203814
Visitors: 2
Filed: Jan. 30, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 30, 2020
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ANDREW J. GUILFORD , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, the relevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED th
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ANDREW J. GUILFORD , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, the relevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED tha..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ANDREW J. GUILFORD, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, the relevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered dismissing this action without prejudice and without leave to amend.
FootNotes
1. Partially redacted in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
Source: Leagle
