Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02600/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02600-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE DEJESUS RODRIGUEZ, No. 2:05-cv-2600-MCE-GGH-PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

STATE COMPENSATION INS

INSURANCE FUND,

Defendant.

________________________/

On March 14, 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 (10) days. Plaintiff

filed Objections on March 20, 2006, Defendant filed a Reply to

Plaintiff’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. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-02600-MCE -GGH Document 40 Filed 05/01/06 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

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 Ccourt

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 March

14, 2006, are ADOPTED; 

2. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are granted; and

3. This action is dismissed with prejudice.

DATED: April 28, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02600-MCE -GGH Document 40 Filed 05/01/06 Page 2 of 2