Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00227/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00227-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

 Plaintiff also filed an Amended Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court on 1

February 8, 2008, representing his continued, improvident efforts to remove this action to federal

court. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IDOWU O. OGHOGHO,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-08-0227 LKK EFB PS

vs.

TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On February 1, 2008, 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

February 8, 2008, 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

Case 2:08-cv-00227-LKK -EFB Document 8 Filed 04/08/08 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

(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.

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 February 1, 2008, are

ADOPTED; 

2. This case is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California in and

for the County of Sacramento; and

3. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

DATED: April 8, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00227-LKK -EFB Document 8 Filed 04/08/08 Page 2 of 2