Opinion

(PS) Peoples v. Navy Board Annex

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Jun 16, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.4%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 GARY D. PEOPLES, JR., No. 2:19-cv-02253-TLN-AC

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER

14 NAVY BOARD ANNEX,

15 Defendant.

16

17 Plaintiff Gary D. Peoples, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an

18 action challenging a decision by the Department of the Navy’s Board for Correction of Naval

19 Records denying Plaintiff’s application to upgrade his discharge from “Other Than Honorable by

20 Reason of Misconduct.” The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

21 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22 On April 21, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were

23 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings

24 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff filed

25 objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 29.) Defendant filed a response to

26 the objections. (ECF No. 31.)

27 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which

28 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

1 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As

2 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court

3 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United

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

5 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

6 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the

7 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s

8 analysis.

9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

10 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 21, 2020 (ECF No. 27), are ADOPTED

11 in full; and

12 2. The Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED, without leave to amend.

13 3. The Motion to Dismiss at (ECF No. 25) is DENIED as moot.

14 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 DATED: June 15, 2020

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.