Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02553/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02553-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

CARES, INC. aka CONSUMER

ADVOCATES RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, et al.,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-05-2553 FCD GGH

vs.

MICHAEL O. LEAVITT,

Defendant. ORDER

__________________________________/

On July 11, 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. Defendant filed objections on July 25,

2007, plaintiff filed a reply to defendant’s objections, 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 fact to which no objection has been made,

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

Case 2:05-cv-02553-FCD-GGH Document 57 Filed 08/16/07 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

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 Findings and Recommendations in full. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed July 11, 2007, are ADOPTED; and

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, filed December 28, 2006, is denied.

DATED: August 16, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02553-FCD-GGH Document 57 Filed 08/16/07 Page 2 of 2