Opinion

(PS) Robbins v. Merit Systems Protection Board

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Sep 26, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.4%

“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 | ....°

How later courts described this case

  • “[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 | ....°

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 DEANNA ROBBINS, No. 2:21-cv-00621-KJM-DMC

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER

14 MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION

BOARD,

15

Defendant.

16

17

18 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. The matter was referred to a

19 United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of California local rules.

20 On August 30, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which

21 were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within

22 the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.

23 Instead, plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. See First Am. Compl., ECF No. 26.

24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,

25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed

26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law

27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court

28 /////

1 | ....°). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

2 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 30, 2023, are adopted in full.

5 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 21, is GRANTED.

6 3. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

7 4. Plaintiff has already filed a first amended complaint. First Am. Compl., ECF

8 | No. 26 (dated September 9, 2023). Plaintiff may proceed with the first amended complaint as

9 || filed or may file a new amended complaint within 30 days of receiving a copy of this order. If

10 | plaintiff does not timely file a new amended complaint, the first amended complaint as filed on

11 || ECF No. 26 shall be the operative complaint.

12 5. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

13 | DATED: September 25, 2023

14

6 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.