Opinion

(PS) Martin v. Brown-Martin

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Nov 12, 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 ERICA YVONNE MARTIN, No. 2: 20-cv-2011 JAM CKD (PS)

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER

14 BRYAN MARTIN, SR.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 On November 03, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF.

18 No. 10) herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to

19 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On November 04, 2020,

20 plaintiff filed objections to the proposed findings and recommendations (ECF. No. 11), which

21 have been considered by the court.

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

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

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

25 also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed

26 findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and

27 decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th

28 Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi

1 Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

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

3 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed findings and recommendations in full.

4 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

5 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed November 03, 2020, are

6 ADOPTED;

7 2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 4) is dismissed with prejudice;

8 3. Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 6) is denied;

9 4. Plaintiff’s motion for permission to file electronically (ECF No. 7) is denied as moot;

10 5. Plaintiff’s motion to quash state court guardianship orders (ECF No. 9) is denied as

11 moot; and

12 6. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

13

DATED: November 10, 2020 /s/ John A. Mendez

14

THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ

15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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.