Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00422/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00422-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

FLORENCE DOUGLAS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0422 LKK GGH PS

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT ORDER

OF CORRECTIONS et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On October 26, 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

November 8, 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 2:06-cv-00422-LKK -GGH Document 9 Filed 11/29/06 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

 Inconsistent references in the body of the Findings and Recommendations to denying 1

plaintiff’s application and dismissing her complaint with prejudice are disregarded.

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. 

While plaintiff has submitted information missing from her initial application to proceed in

forma pauperis, she has not submitted a new application; moreover, the additional information

provided in support the complaint serves to underscore this court’s lack of jurisdiction and

plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed October 26, 2006, are

ADOPTED; and

2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and the

complaint is DISMISSED, each without prejudice.1

SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 29, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00422-LKK -GGH Document 9 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 2