Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00832/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00832-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Karl F. Jacobson
Defendant
Robert Lee Scott
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

ROBERT LEE SCOTT,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-06-0832 FCD EFB PS

vs.

KARL F. JACOBSON,

Defendant. ORDER

__________________________________/

On August 2, 2006, 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. Defendant filed objections on

August 15, 2006. Plaintiff filed a reply to defendant’s objections on August 29, 2006. 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.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

Case 2:06-cv-00832-FCD-EFB Document 14 Filed 09/20/06 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

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 August 2, 2006, are

ADOPTED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to remand is granted and this action is summarily remanded

to Colorado’s La Plata County District Court;

3. Defendant’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied;

4. Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees is denied; 

5. The Clerk is directed to serve a certified copy of this order to the clerk of the

La Plata County District Court and reference the state case number (Case No. 06CV62) in the

proof of service; and

6. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

DATED:September 20, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00832-FCD-EFB Document 14 Filed 09/20/06 Page 2 of 2