Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01221/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01221-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liabilty
Cause of Action: 28:2674 Federal Tort Claims 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

VERNON F. GARDNER,

Plaintiff, Case No. CIV-S-04-1221 FCD GGH PS

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. ORDER

__________________________________/

On April 25, 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 May

6, 2005, defendant filed a reply to plaintiff’s objections, 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 2:04-cv-01221-FCD-GGH Document 25 Filed 05/31/05 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

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 April 25, 2005, are

ADOPTED; and

2. Defendant’s December 20, 2004, summary judgment motion is granted, and

judgment is entered in favor of defendant.

DATED:May 27, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

gardner1221.jo

Case 2:04-cv-01221-FCD-GGH Document 25 Filed 05/31/05 Page 2 of 2