Filed: Mar. 12, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 12, 2020
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . On February 20, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 28) herein that were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On February 28, 2020, defendant Alfred Harding filed objections to the proposed findings and recommendations (ECF. No. 31). In his Objections, Mr. Harding does not raise any cogent legal argument why
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . On February 20, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 28) herein that were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On February 28, 2020, defendant Alfred Harding filed objections to the proposed findings and recommendations (ECF. No. 31). In his Objections, Mr. Harding does not raise any cogent legal argument why t..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
On February 20, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 28) herein that were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On February 28, 2020, defendant Alfred Harding filed objections to the proposed findings and recommendations (ECF. No. 31). In his Objections, Mr. Harding does not raise any cogent legal argument why the magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendations should not be adopted by the court, and does not specify what relief he is seeking. Nevertheless, the court has read and considered what he has stated.
This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. 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 February 20, 2020, are ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED;
3. Judgment is entered in plaintiff's favor and against defendant;
4. Alfred Harding is found to be the true owner of the Subject Property;
5. The transfer of the Subject Property to Capital Investments Trust is set aside as a fraudulent conveyance;
6. The United States is found to have valid federal tax liens against all property and rights to property of Alfred Harding, including, but not limited to, his interest in the Subject Property;
7. The federal tax liens against Alfred Harding and against Capital Investments Trust, encumbering the Subject Property, are foreclosed; and
8. The United States is allowed to submit an Order of Foreclosure and Judicial Sale of the Subject Property, consistent with the Stipulation Regarding Priority between the United States and Siskiyou County (ECF Nos. 13, 14).
