Opinion

(PS) D-Q University Board of Trustees v. Williams

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Oct 7, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.5%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 D-Q UNIVERSITY BOARD OF No. 2:19-cv-2177-JAM-EFB PS

TRUSTEES,

12

Plaintiff,

13 ORDER

v.

14

MICHAEL A. WILLIAMS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

17

18 On September 14, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

19 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings

20 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendants Sky Road Webb and

21 Michael A. Williams filed objections on September 28, 2020. Plaintiff filed a response to the

22 objections on October 2, 2020 and defendants filed a reply thereto on October 5, 2020. Those

23 filings were considered by the undersigned.

24 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which

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

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

27 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court

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

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

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

3

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

4

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

5

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

6

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed September 14, 2020, are

7

ADOPTED; and

8

2. The case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for

9

the County of Yolo; and

10

3. The court declines to reach the merits of the remaining pending motions.

11

12

13 DATED: October 6, 2020 /s/ John A. Mendez

14 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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.