“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 . . . .”
How later courts described this case
- “[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 . . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 APRIL PREMO WILLIAMS, No. 2:22-cv-00302 KJM AC (PS)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA WORKERS
COMPENSATION BOARD and THE
15 HOME DEPOT,
16 Defendants.
17
18 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a
19 United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21).
20 On November 10, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which
21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the
22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 24. Neither
23 party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
24 The court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d
25 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See
26 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the
27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court
28 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be
1 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. Although plaintiff filed a notice of appeal,
2 || the notice does not mention what she is appealing in this case. See ECF No. 26. Thus, this
3 || appeal is frivolous, and the court retains jurisdiction of plaintiff's case under Chuman v. Wright,
4 | 960 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992). See 20 Moore’s Federal Practice — Civil § 303.32 (2022) □□□□□
5 || district judge who concludes that an appeal is clearly frivolous may ignore the notice of appeal
6 || and proceed with the case as if the appeal had not been taken. To hold otherwise would enable a
7 || party to manipulate the court with dilatory tactics.”).
8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
9 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 10, 2022, ECF No. 24, are adopted
10 | in full;
1] 2. Home Depot’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 13, is GRANTED;
12 3. The complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of proper
13 || service; and
14 4. This case is CLOSED.
15 || DATED: January 17, 2023.
16
13 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28