Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02305/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02305-5/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

RON KICZENSKI, No. 2:03-cv-2305-MCE-GGH-PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

JOHN ASHCROFT, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

On February 24, 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 objections on March 6,

2006, defendants filed a reply to plaintiff’s objections on March 16, 2006, 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. 

Case 2:03-cv-02305-MCE -GGH Document 61 Filed 03/30/06 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

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 February 24, 2006, are

ADOPTED; and

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted, and judgment is entered for

defendants.

DATED: March 30, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02305-MCE -GGH Document 61 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 2