Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00466/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00466-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRAKASH NARAYAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-00466-TLN-CKD

ORDER

On March 23, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF. No. 

67) herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On April 7, 2020, Plaintiff

filed objections to the proposed findings and recommendations (ECF. No. 68), which have been 

considered by the Court. 

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 

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); see 

also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). 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 

Case 2:19-cv-00466-TLN-CKD Document 69 Filed 04/20/20 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

27

28

2

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 March 23, 2020, are ADOPTED;

2. The City’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED (ECF No. 54); and

3. Plaintiff’s claims against the City are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED: April 20, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-00466-TLN-CKD Document 69 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 2