Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02693/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02693-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 1

CIV-S-04-2693 RRB GGH PS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIV-S-04-2693 RRB GGH PS

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On November 23, 2005, 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 December 2, 2005, and they were considered by the

District Judge.

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

GLEN CALDWELL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CHAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case 2:04-cv-02693-RRB -GGH Document 20 Filed 12/13/05 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 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 2

CIV-S-04-2693 RRB GGH PS

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. The

Motion to Dismiss should be granted both on procedural grounds and

for the substantive reasons argued by Defendants.

Furthermore, the Court notes that Plaintiff has

significant experience with the court system and the local rules of

procedure having filed several cases in this District within the

past five years.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed

November 23, 2005, are ADOPTED; and

2. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2005.

_____/s/________________________

RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02693-RRB -GGH Document 20 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 2