Opinion

(PS) Samuelian v. CA Franchise Tax Board

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Jan 9, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.3%

“[D]eterminations of law 28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 1 . . . .”

How later courts described this case

  • “[D]eterminations of law 28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 1 . . . .”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 SANDRA C. SAMUELIAN, No. 2:19-cv-01333 KJM AC (PS)

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER

14 CA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a

18 United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21).

19 On November 7, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

20 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings

21 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff has not

22 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff has made several irrelevant filings,

23 which are neither an amended complaint nor objections to the findings and recommendations.

24 ECF Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17.

25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,

26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed

27 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law

28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court

1 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

2 supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 7, 2019, are adopted in full; and

5 2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to

6 comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110.

7 DATED: January 8, 2020.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.