Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00203/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00203-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREL L. ESPINOSA, No. CIV-S-04-0203 MCE/GGH PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

KARL RUDOLPH, ET AL., 

Defendants.

_________________________/

On July 11, 2005, 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 25, 2005, defendants filed a reply to

plaintiff’s objections on July 27, 2005, 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. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-00203-MCE -GGH Document 114 Filed 08/18/05 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

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. 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 July 11,

2005, are ADOPTED; and

2. Plaintiff’s case is dismissed for failure to comply with

court orders.

DATED: August 18, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00203-MCE -GGH Document 114 Filed 08/18/05 Page 2 of 2