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

> District Court, E.D. California · October 7, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10022584

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** October 7, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10022584

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10022584. Public record. Not legal advice.