Sheffield Financial v. Robinson, 2:19-cv-02378-JAM-KJN PS. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20200207a47
Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 06, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 06, 2020
Summary: ORDER (ECF Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7) JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . On January 10, 2020, 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 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 concl
Summary: ORDER (ECF Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7) JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . On January 10, 2020, 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 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 conclu..
More
ORDER
(ECF Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7)
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
On January 10, 2020, 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 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 Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed January 10, 2020, are ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff's request to remand this case is GRANTED;
3. This case is remanded to the Superior Court of California for the County of Stanislaus;
4. Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is denied as moot;
5. Defendant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied as moot;
6. Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees is denied; and
7. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
Source: Leagle
