Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00508/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00508-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

 Although styled as “objections,” this document contains no legal citation, nor even 1

arguments, relative to the magistrate judge’s findings or to his recommendation.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT N. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-06-0508 WBS EFB PS

vs.

LINDA DIANE ST. MARY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On April 11, 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 a document styled

“Objections” on April 19, 2007.1

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

Case 2:06-cv-00508-WBS-EFB Document 69 Filed 05/09/07 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

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. If

plaintiff wants to sue these or other defendants based on visits to the property other than those

alleged in the complaint, he is free to do so. The magistrate judge’s analysis refusing to allow

him to do so by amending his complaint in this action is sound.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed April 11, 2007, are

ADOPTED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend is denied.

DATED: May 7, 2007

Case 2:06-cv-00508-WBS-EFB Document 69 Filed 05/09/07 Page 2 of 2