# (PS) Martin v. Brown-Martin

> District Court, E.D. California · November 12, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10023417

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** November 12, 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/10023417

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10023417. Public record. Not legal advice.