Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Emerson v. Mitchell, 2:19-cv-01529-TLN-DB. (2020)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20200310a21 Visitors: 29
Filed: Mar. 06, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 06, 2020
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . On August 9, 2019, Defendant Krista Mitchell ("Defendant"), proceeding pro se, filed a Notice of Removal of this action, Yolo County Superior Court Case No. PT19-1466, along with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(21). On January 6, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were served
More

ORDER

On August 9, 2019, Defendant Krista Mitchell ("Defendant"), proceeding pro se, filed a Notice of Removal of this action, Yolo County Superior Court Case No. PT19-1466, along with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(21).

On January 6, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 4.) The time for filing objections has expired, and no party has filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

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); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 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 filed January 6, 2020 (ECF No. 4), are adopted in full;

2. Defendant's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, filed on August 9, 2019 (ECF No. 2), is DENIED;

3. This action is REMANDED to the Yolo County Superior Court; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is ordered not to open another case removing Yolo County Superior Court Case No. PT19-1466.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer