Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01377/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01377-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

TATE GUICE III, No. 2:06-cv-01377-MCE-EFB PS

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

CITY OF FAIRFIELD, a public entity;

FAIRFIELD POLICE OFFICER

THOMAS NO. 855, individually and in his 

official capacity; FAIRFIELD CHIEF OF 

POLICE BILL GRESHAM, individually

and in his official capacity; and DOES 1 

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

On January 8, 2008, 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. No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v. United

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). 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).

Case 2:06-cv-01377-MCE -EFB Document 69 Filed 02/19/08 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

 Plaintiff’s second motion to amend, filed January 29, 2008, is also denied. It is, in effect, 1

identical to the motion filed December 13, 2007, and fails to establish good cause justifying

amendment. The court reminds the parties that the deadline for filing dispositive motions in this

action is March 19, 2008. 

2

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 January 8, 2008, are ADOPTED; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) is denied; and,

3. Plaintiff’s motion to amend, filed December 13, 2007, is denied and the amended

complaint filed by plaintiff on November 30,2007, is stricken.1

Dated: February 15, 2008

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01377-MCE -EFB Document 69 Filed 02/19/08 Page 2 of 2