From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Estrada v. Martin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 26, 2020
No. 2:19-cv-2115-JAM-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. May. 26, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2:19-cv-2115-JAM-KJN PS

05-26-2020

FRANK RUDOLPH ESTRADA, Plaintiff, v. MATT MARTIN, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

(ECF Nos. 18, 21, 34, 36, 37, 38)

On April 10, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 36), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On April 24, 2020, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 38), which have been considered by the court.

Plaintiff requested leave to file late objections, as he believed his objections were untimely due to the slow processing speed of the mail in prison. (ECF No. 37.) However, the court's docket reflects that plaintiff's objections were timely filed, and so no extension was needed. --------

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 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); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). 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 matter 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 School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 36) are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants' motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 18, 21) are GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff's request for "early subpoena" (ECF No. 34) is DENIED AS MOOT;

4. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. DATED: May 26, 2020

/s/ John A. Mendez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE


Summaries of

Estrada v. Martin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 26, 2020
No. 2:19-cv-2115-JAM-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. May. 26, 2020)
Case details for

Estrada v. Martin

Case Details

Full title:FRANK RUDOLPH ESTRADA, Plaintiff, v. MATT MARTIN, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: May 26, 2020

Citations

No. 2:19-cv-2115-JAM-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. May. 26, 2020)