Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01715/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01715-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports

---

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

ANDRE RHODES, No. 2:06-cv-1715-MCE-EFB-PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

On March 19, 2007, 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 filed objections on March 27,

2007, defendant filed a reply to plaintiff’s objections on March 30, 2007, and they were

considered by the undersigned.

Plaintiff’s March 27, 2007, objections are also a request for reconsideration of the

magistrate judge’s order filed March 19, 2007, denying plaintiff’s “Motion for Discovery

Hearing & Motion for Sanctions.” Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate judge’s

orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 

Case 2:06-cv-01715-MCE -EFB Document 128 Filed 04/27/07 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

Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge’s

ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

This court has conducted a de novo review of 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,

the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v.

U.S., 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 Sch. 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 March 19, 2007, are ADOPTED; 

2. Defendant’s motion for dismissal as a sanction is denied; and

3. Upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed March 19, 2007, is

affirmed. 

Dated: April 27, 2007

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01715-MCE -EFB Document 128 Filed 04/27/07 Page 2 of 2