Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02468/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02468-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
Cause of Action: 28:1358 Land Condemnation

---

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

ESTATE OF SAMUEL BELL JR., et al.,

RANDOLPH ALVIN BELL, SR.

(SUCCESSOR TO THE ESTATE OF

SAMUEL BELL JR.),

Plaintiff, CIV-S-06-2468 FCD GGH PS

vs.

ROBERT L. ROSE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On February 9, 2007, 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

February 16, 2007, in addition to a request for joinder of claims and to quiet title, accompanied

by a letter of explanation, 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.

Case 2:06-cv-02468-FCD-GGH Document 18 Filed 03/12/07 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

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 February 9, 2007, are

ADOPTED; 

2. The motion to remand Sacramento County Superior Court Case No.

06AS04002, filed on December 5, 2006, by the City of Sacramento, is granted; and

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without leave to amend.

DATED: March 9, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02468-FCD-GGH Document 18 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 2