Filed: Nov. 18, 2010
Latest Update: Nov. 18, 2010
Summary: ORDER GARR M. KING, District Judge. The Honorable Paul Papak, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on October 8, 2010. Defendants filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate's Findings and Recommendation concerning a dispositive motion or prisoner petition, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
Summary: ORDER GARR M. KING, District Judge. The Honorable Paul Papak, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on October 8, 2010. Defendants filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate's Findings and Recommendation concerning a dispositive motion or prisoner petition, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. ..
More
ORDER
GARR M. KING, District Judge.
The Honorable Paul Papak, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on October 8, 2010. Defendants filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation.
When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate's Findings and Recommendation concerning a dispositive motion or prisoner petition, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). This court has, therefore, given de novo review of the rulings of Magistrate Judge Papak.
This court ADOPTS the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Papak (#81) dated October 8, 2010 in its entirety.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motions to dismiss (#20, #35, #67) are granted as to plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claim and denied as to plaintiffs' remaining claims. Plaintiffs may file a Third Amended Complaint stating facts as to their declaratory judgment claim. Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss or transfer venue (#69) is denied.
