Opinion
No. 2:20-cv-00178-TLN-DMC
04-07-2020
DONALD M. BIRD, Plaintiff, v. MAXINE WATERS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Donald Bird ("Plaintiff"), who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action for mandamus relief. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 19, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 4.) On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Negate the Findings and Recommendations" (ECF No. 5) which this Court construes as objections to the findings and recommendations.
This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. 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 Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis.
Plaintiff's objections (ECF No. 5) contain neither legal argument nor authority and are therefore overruled. Further, the Court finds Plaintiff's pleadings could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 484, 497 (9th Cir. 1995)).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 19, 2020 (ECF No. 4), are adopted in full;
2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice;
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 5 as a pending motion; and
4. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to enter judgment and close this file.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 7, 2020
/s/_________
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge