SHIPPAM v. RAPID LINK CORP., 2:11-cv-2800 LKK GGH. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120621898
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 19, 2012
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge. On May 21, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (Dkt. No. 22.) No objections were filed. Accordingly, the court presumes 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
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge. On May 21, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (Dkt. No. 22.) No objections were filed. Accordingly, the court presumes 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 V..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge.
On May 21, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (Dkt. No. 22.) No objections were filed. Accordingly, the court presumes 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).
The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations (dkt. no. 22) are ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. The clerk's entry of default as to defendant Telenational Communications, Inc. (dkt. no. 8) is SET ASIDE; and
3. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against defendant Telenational Communications, Inc. (dkt. no. 20) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as service has not been effectuated and the motion is premature.
Source: Leagle
