Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00269/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00269-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY ERVIN,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-05-0269 LKK GGH PS

vs.

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On June 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 July

14, 2006, and July 17, 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 2:05-cv-00269-LKK -GGH Document 59 Filed 09/12/06 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

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. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

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

ADOPTED; 

2. The motion to dismiss by defendants Virga, Cecil, McMaster, and Castellanos,

filed April 20, 2006, is dismissed as moot (dismissal already ordered);

3. Defendants Judicial Counsel and Superior Court of California, County of

Sacramento, is dismissed with prejudice; and

4. This action is terminated.

DATED: September 11, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00269-LKK -GGH Document 59 Filed 09/12/06 Page 2 of 2