Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01723/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01723-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

WILLIENE D. DAVIS, ET AL., No. CIV-S-05-1723 MCE/GGH PS

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., 

Defendants.

_____________________________/

On September 8, 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. Plaintiffs

filed objections on September 19, 2005, and they were considered

by the district judge.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-01723-MCE -GGH Document 10 Filed 09/28/05 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

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 

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

September 8, 2005, are ADOPTED; and

2. Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order,

filed August 25, 2005, is denied.

DATED: September 28, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01723-MCE -GGH Document 10 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 2