Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02632/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02632-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil 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

JEFFERSON A. MCGEE,

Plaintiff, 2:05-cv-2632-GEB-EFB-PS

vs.

CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE,

et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On January 3, 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 late objections and

they were considered by the undersigned. 

 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

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

Case 2:05-cv-02632-GEB-EFB Document 91 Filed 01/26/07 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

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 January 3, 2007, are

ADOPTED; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied;

3. This action is dismissed with prejudice against all defendants for failure to

state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P.

8; and

4. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

Dated: January 25, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02632-GEB-EFB Document 91 Filed 01/26/07 Page 2 of 2