Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01217/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01217-5/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

 Plaintiff filed a belated request for extension of time to file an opposition to the motion to 1

dismiss. That request is denied; however, the court has considered the substantive arguments raised

in the objections.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH A. SHERMAN,

Plaintiff, 2:06-cv-1217-GEB-GGH-PS

vs.

CA. REAL ESTATE

COMMISSIONER DAVI,

Defendant. ORDER

__________________________________/

On November 5, 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

November 16, 2007, and they were considered by the district judge.

1

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

Case 2:06-cv-01217-GEB-GGH Document 25 Filed 01/04/08 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

(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 Findings and Recommendations in full. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed November 5, 2007, are ADOPTED;

and

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, filed June 6, 2007, is granted, and this action is

dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: January 4, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01217-GEB-GGH Document 25 Filed 01/04/08 Page 2 of 2