Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00219/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00219-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

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

 The recommendation of dismissal was based on plaintiff’s failure to timely file an amended

complaint. Although plaintiff sought and received an extension of time to file objections to those

findings and recommendations, he never sought an extension of time to file an amended complaint,

and his objections do not address his failure to do so. Further, he does not object to the court’s

reasoning in dismissing the original complaint with leave to amend, nor do his objections address

the court’s concerns regarding federal subject matter jurisdiction expressed in the August 22, 2007,

dismissal order. Rather, plaintiff’s objections concern only the magistrate judge’s authority to

dismiss the original complaint with leave to amend. The court has considered plaintiff’s objections,

and finds them unavailing. Further, in light of plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint that

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE M. WILLIS,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-07-0219 FCD EFB PS

vs.

CHRISTY LOWERY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On October 10, 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. After receiving an extension of

time to file objections, plaintiff filed his objections on November 9, 2007, and they were

considered by the undersigned.1

 

Case 2:07-cv-00219-FCD-EFB Document 37 Filed 11/16/07 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

addressed the court’s concerns regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the court finds that the

magistrate judge’s recommendation of dismissal is appropriate. 

2

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 October 10, 2007, are

ADOPTED; 

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk is directed to close

the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 11-110. 

DATED: November 15, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00219-FCD-EFB Document 37 Filed 11/16/07 Page 2 of 2