Lull v. County of Placer, 2:17-cv-2216-KJM-EFB PS. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20191002h04
Visitors: 29
Filed: Sep. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2019
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . On September 11, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 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
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . On September 11, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 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...
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
On September 11, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.
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 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) ("[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . ."). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 11, 2019, are ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiffs Conor Bugbee, Kevin Burrage, and Kaleigh Burrage's claims are dismissed as moot;
3. Defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint (ECF No. 21) is granted;
4. Plaintiff Lull's motion to amend the first amended complaint (ECF No. 35) is denied;
5. Plaintiff Lull's claims are dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim; and
6. The Clerk is directed to close the case.
Source: Leagle
