RAMIREZ v. MERCED COUNTY, 1:11-cv-00531-AWI-SAB. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20170920825
Visitors: 5
Filed: Sep. 18, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 18, 2017
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 58, 61) ANTHONY W. ISHII , Senior District Judge . On December 11, 2012, an order issued granting Defendant Merced County's motion for summary judgment and judgment was entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff Rosa Patricia Ramirez (hereafter "Judgment Debtor"). (ECF Nos. 33, 34.) On June 22, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to amend the judgment to properly reflect the name
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 58, 61) ANTHONY W. ISHII , Senior District Judge . On December 11, 2012, an order issued granting Defendant Merced County's motion for summary judgment and judgment was entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff Rosa Patricia Ramirez (hereafter "Judgment Debtor"). (ECF Nos. 33, 34.) On June 22, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to amend the judgment to properly reflect the name ..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT
(ECF Nos. 58, 61)
ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge.
On December 11, 2012, an order issued granting Defendant Merced County's motion for summary judgment and judgment was entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff Rosa Patricia Ramirez (hereafter "Judgment Debtor"). (ECF Nos. 33, 34.) On June 22, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to amend the judgment to properly reflect the name of Judgment Debtor who has married and is now using a different name. (ECF No. 58.) The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 18, 2017, the magistrate judge filed a findings and recommendations recommending that Defendant's motion to amend the judgment be granted. The findings and recommendations was served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days (14) days from the date of service. The period for filing objections has passed and no objections have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations, filed August 18, 2017, is ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. Defendant's motion to amend the supplemental judgment, filed June 22, 2017, is GRANTED;
3. Plaintiff's name in the December 23, 2013 supplemental judgment is amended from Rosa Patricia Ramirez to Rosa Patricia Irwin; and
4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to issue an amended supplemental judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
