Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03550/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03550-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
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

ANTHONY MARCELOUS KNOX, SR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-09-3550-FCD-KJN-PS

vs.

THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY, ORDER

Defendant.

__________________________________/

On March 25, 2010, 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 fourteen days. On April 6, 2010, plaintiff filed

objections to the findings and recommendations. 

“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

[magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds

the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The

court presumes that any findings of fact not objected to are correct. See Orand v. United States,

602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de

Case 2:09-cv-03550-FCD-KJN Document 14 Filed 04/28/10 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

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 March 25, 2010, are ADOPTED;

2. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to allege a proper

basis for this court’s federal subject matter jurisdiction; and

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

DATED: April 27, 2010. 

Case 2:09-cv-03550-FCD-KJN Document 14 Filed 04/28/10 Page 2 of 2