Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02368/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02368-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAY L. SELLERS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2368 LEW GGH PS

vs.

PINE TREE GARDENS, et al., ORDER

__________________________________/

On January 16, 2008, 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 ten days. Plaintiff thereafter filed the

following: “Objection,” filed January 29, 2008; “Motion to File Fourth Amended Complaint,”

filed January 29, 2008; “Supplement to Objections,” filed February 5, 2008; “Civil Rights

Complaint,” filed March 4, 2008; “Ex Parte Conditional Motion to Withdraw Claim with

Prejudice,” filed March 4, 2008; and an application to proceed in forma pauperis, filed March 4,

2008. 

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to

which 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). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made,

Case 2:07-cv-02368-JAM-GGH Document 16 Filed 03/13/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

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 each of the matters filed by plaintiff and the applicable

legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Findings

and Recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s “Motion to File Fourth Amended Complaint,” filed January 29,

2008, is DENIED; 

2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, filed March 4, 2008, is

DENIED; 

3. The Findings and Recommendations filed January 29, 2008, are ADOPTED;

and 

4. This action is dismissed with prejudice .

DATED: 03/12/2008

/s/ Ronald S. W. Lew 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

sellers2368.jo

Case 2:07-cv-02368-JAM-GGH Document 16 Filed 03/13/08 Page 2 of 2