Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00386/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00386-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

MUHAMMAD MUQADDAR JAVAID,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-07-0386 FCD GGH PS

vs.

ALLIED-BARTON SECURITY SERVICES,

BARTON PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant. ORDER

__________________________________/

On April 30, 2008, 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 7, 2008, to which defendants responded on May 20, 2008, and both 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 2:07-cv-00386-FCD-GGH Document 45 Filed 06/02/08 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 Findings and Recommendations in full. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 30, 2008, are ADOPTED; and

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

DATED: June 2, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00386-FCD-GGH Document 45 Filed 06/02/08 Page 2 of 2