Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00620/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00620-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK MARCELES COOLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-620-TLN-KJN PS

ORDER

On July 29, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 34), 

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff 

filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 35), which have been considered 

by the court. Defendants did not file any objections to the findings and recommendations. 

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); 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 matter 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 

Case 2:14-cv-00620-TLN-KJN Document 36 Filed 09/02/14 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

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 findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 34) are ADOPTED. 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 22) is 

denied.

3. Defendants shall answer Plaintiff’s first amended complaint within 21 days of this 

order.

Dated: September 2, 2014

Case 2:14-cv-00620-TLN-KJN Document 36 Filed 09/02/14 Page 2 of 2