ALSTON v. TASSONE, 2:11-cv-2078 JAM GGH PS. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120730461
Visitors: 16
Filed: Jul. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 27, 2012
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. On July 2, 2012, 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 (14) days. 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 nov
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. On July 2, 2012, 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 (14) days. 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..
More
ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
On July 2, 2012, 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 (14) days. 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. 33) are ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. Plaintiff's motion for leave of court (dkt. no. 32), construed as a request to stay the action, is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
