Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00232/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00232-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marie Patton
Plaintiff
United States
Defendant

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

MARIE PATTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-05-0232 FCD GGH PS

vs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT

OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On April 22, 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. No objections were filed.

 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). 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.

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-00232-FCD-GGH Document 8 Filed 05/31/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed April 22, 2005, are

ADOPTED; and

2. This action is dismissed.

DATED:May 27, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

patton232.jo

Case 2:05-cv-00232-FCD-GGH Document 8 Filed 05/31/05 Page 2 of 2