Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BLUE MOUNTAIN HOMES LLC v. BELL, CIV S-11-2155 KJM DAD PS. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20120130482 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 26, 2012
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge. Defendant Renee L.H. Bell, who is proceeding pro se in the above-entitled unlawful detainer action, filed a notice of removal and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). On August 22, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the fi
More

ORDER

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

Defendant Renee L.H. Bell, who is proceeding pro se in the above-entitled unlawful detainer action, filed a notice of removal and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21).

On August 22, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and recommendations. The fourteen-day period has expired, and no party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. 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). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 22, 2011 (ECF No. 5) are adopted in full;

2. This action is summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Solano;

3. Plaintiff's ex parte application for adoption of the magistrate judge's recommendation to remand (ECF No. 6) as well as its motion to remand (ECF No. 10) are denied as moot; and

4. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

FootNotes


1. The parties have filed documents other than objections outside the objection period. These documents are addressed below.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer