Pearl Investment Co., LLC v. McPhee

Full title: PEARL INVESTMENT CO., LLC, Plaintiff, v. RHONDA McPHEE, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: May 20, 2015

2:15-cv-00852 KJM AC (E.D. Cal. May. 20, 2015)

Opinion

PEARL INVESTMENT CO., LLC, Plaintiff, v. RHONDA McPHEE, et al., Defendants. No. 2:15-cv-00852 KJM AC United States District Court, E.D. California. May 20, 2015

          ORDER

          KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

         Defendants, proceeding pro se, removed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21).

         On April 30, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 7. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

         The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. The findings and recommendations filed April 30, 2015, are adopted in full;

         2. This action is remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court; and

         3. Plaintiff's motion to remand, ECF No. 5, and motion to shorten time, ECF No. 6, are denied as moot.