Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01715/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01715-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports

---

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

ANDRE RHODES, No. 06-cv-01715-MCE-EFB PS

Plaintiff,

vs. ORDER

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

________________________________/

On July 3, 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. On July 11 and July 13, 2007, plaintiff filed

various documents, including documents styled as follows: (1) “Request for Reconsideration by

the District Court of Magistrate Judge’s Ruling & Request to Stay & Continue on to Pretrial,” (2)

“Plaintiffs Disputed Facts & Request for Trial or Stay,” and (3) “Plaintiff Andre Rhodes’ Notice

of Petition Allegations of Jurisdiction.” 

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01715-MCE -EFB Document 155 Filed 08/01/07 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

The court construes these three documents as comprising plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate

judge’s findings and recommendations. On July 17 and 18, 2007, defendant filed its reply briefs. 

The undersigned has considered all of the filings.

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. 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 July 3, 2007, are ADOPTED; 

2. Defendant Electronic Data System’s motion for summary judgment is granted;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied; and

4. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

Dated: July 31, 2007

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01715-MCE -EFB Document 155 Filed 08/01/07 Page 2 of 2