Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02305/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02305-0/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. CIV-S-03-2305 MCE/GGH PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

JOHN ASHCROFT, ET AL., 

Defendant.

_________________________/

On December 9, 2004, 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. Defendant

filed objections on December 16, 2004, plaintiff filed objections

and a reply to defendant’s objections on December 22, 2004, 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. 

///

Case 2:03-cv-02305-MCE -GGH Document 34 Filed 04/18/05 Page 1 of 3
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

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 December

9, 2004, are ADOPTED; 

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied; 

3. Plaintiff’s Ninth Amendment claim is dismissed with

prejudice; and

4. The pretrial conference and trial are rescheduled as

follows: Pretrial conference is set for September 19, 2005 at

2:30 p.m. before the Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr. Court

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-02305-MCE -GGH Document 34 Filed 04/18/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

trial is set for November 2, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. before the

Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr. 

DATED: April 18, 2005.

______________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 2:03-cv-02305-MCE -GGH Document 34 Filed 04/18/05 Page 3 of 3