Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00590/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00590-3/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 

KATHRYN THAUT, et al., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

K. HSIEH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0590-JAM-KJN PS 

ORDER 

 On July 24, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF. No. 32) 

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 August 07, 2015, 

defendants filed objections to the proposed findings and recommendations (ECF. No. 37), which 

have been considered by the court. 

 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), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); 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 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 

Case 2:15-cv-00590-JAM-KJN Document 55 Filed 11/23/15 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

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 24, 2015, are ADOPTED; 

 2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 17, 18) are GRANTED WITHOUT 

LEAVE TO AMEND with respect to plaintiffs’ claims against defendants Gary Swarthout, 

Priyasheelta Nand, and County of San Joaquin, and these defendants are dismissed from this 

action with prejudice. 

DATED: November 20, 2015 

 /s/ JOHN A. MENDEZ 

 John A. Mendez 

 United States District Judge 

15cv0590.jo 

Case 2:15-cv-00590-JAM-KJN Document 55 Filed 11/23/15 Page 2 of 2