Filed: Nov. 25, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 25, 2015
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , Senior District Judge . On October 30, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 21), 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 that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States , 602 F.2d 207 , 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , Senior District Judge . On October 30, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 21), 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 that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States , 602 F.2d 207 , 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's c..
More
ORDER
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.
On October 30, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 21), 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 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).
The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations except for the recommendation that denies as moot the motion to defense that Defendants filed. Since the federal Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit, that portion of the Magistrate judge's recommendation is rejected.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
