Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02575/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02575-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights

---

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

JASON PAUL MARSHALL,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-05-2575 LKK GGH PS

vs.

UNITED NATIONS, et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

__________________________________/

On April 12, 2006, 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

April 24, 2006, 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. 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 

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-02575-LKK -GGH Document 30 Filed 07/07/06 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

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 April 12, 2006, are

ADOPTED; 

2. The motions to dismiss filed by defendants City of Sacramento on January 23,

2006, the United States on February 1, 2006, and the State of California on February 6, 2006, are

granted; and

3. This action is dismissed with prejudice.

DATED: July 6, 2006.

_______________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

marshall2575.jo

Case 2:05-cv-02575-LKK -GGH Document 30 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 2