Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02498/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02498-4/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

 Plaintiff asserts her position was mischaracterized by the court’s statement “plaintiff 1

concedes that a Conditional Use Permit . . . is required to authorize commercial usage of her

property.” Findings and Recommendations, at p. 7, lines 5-6. The record does not support

plaintiff’s objection. The magistrate judge reiterated plaintiff’s position, stated at the hearing and

throughout her papers, that a CUP should not be required in determining property setbacks

although required to approve commercial usage. Moreover, this matter is nondispositive in

considering plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. Similarly, the declaration of Mr.

Fabiano included with plaintiff’s objections does not demonstrate that the December 28, 2006,

declaration of Mr. Jimmy Stillman was false nor, therefore, that the court’s reliance thereon was

inappropriate.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREN TRAVENIA, No. 2:06-cv-2498-MCE-GGH-PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

WOODLAND CITY, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

On January 26, 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 February 9,

2007, and they were considered by the district judge.

1

Case 2:06-cv-02498-MCE -GGH Document 17 Filed 03/08/07 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

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 Orlando 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 January 26, 2007, are ADOPTED;

and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, filed December 11, 2006, is denied.

Dated: March 8, 2007

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02498-MCE -GGH Document 17 Filed 03/08/07 Page 2 of 2