Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00100/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00100-1/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

 Plaintiff also requested oral argument regarding his objections. That request is denied. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC GARFIELD WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-07-0100 LKK EFB PS

vs.

SEAN KENNEY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On May 24, 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

June 6, 2007, and they were considered by the undersigned.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

(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.

Case 2:07-cv-00100-LKK-EFB Document 17 Filed 07/06/07 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

2

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 May 24, 2007, are

ADOPTED; and

2. Defendants City of Vallejo and the Vallejo Police Department are dismissed

from this action.

DATED: July 5, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00100-LKK-EFB Document 17 Filed 07/06/07 Page 2 of 2