Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02386/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02386-1/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

M. DEAN REED PRODUCTION No. 2:06-cv-2386-MCE-GGH-PS

CORP. (THE ALE FACTORY);

MARY DEAN REED,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPT.

OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY

SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

On December 18, 2006, 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 a letter on December 28,

2006, which is construed as objections, and it was 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). 

///

Case 2:06-cv-02386-MCE -GGH Document 10 Filed 02/21/07 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

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. 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. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed December 18, 2006, are

ADOPTED; 

2. The complaint filed October 30, 2006, is dismissed with prejudice;

3. Plaintiff’s request filed November 9, 2006, to relate this case to others that may be

pending in Los Angeles and Kern Counties is denied; and

4. Plaintiff’s statement concerning fees filed November 30, 2006, designated a “request”

by the Clerk of Court, is denied.

Dated: February 21, 2007

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02386-MCE -GGH Document 10 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 2