Expose v. Speiller

Full title: LINDA ROSE EXPOSE, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE STACY SPEILLER, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jul 30, 2021

2:21-cv-01035-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-01035-TLN-KJN

07-30-2021

LINDA ROSE EXPOSE, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE STACY SPEILLER, et al., Defendants.

Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge.

ORDER

Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge.

Plaintiff proceeds in this civil action pro se. 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 June 25, 2021 the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3), which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On July 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF Nos. 4, 5), which have been considered by the Court.

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. 3) are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Plaintiff s APA claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and Plaintiff is otherwise DENIED leave to amend;

3. Plaintiff is warned against continuously filing frivolous claims in this Court, and her failure to heed this warning may result in the issuance of a pre-filing order restricting her ability to initiate proceedings in the Eastern District of California; and

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.