Juiad v. Pringle

Full title: JUIAD, ID 14691, Plaintiff, v. JEANETTE DALE PRINGLE, Defendant.

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

Date published: Jan 9, 2012

CIV S-11-0563 KJM DAD PS (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012)

Opinion

JUIAD, ID 14691, Plaintiff, v. JEANETTE DALE PRINGLE, Defendant. No. CIV S-11-0563 KJM DAD PS. United States District Court, E.D. California. January 9, 2012.

          ORDER

          KIMBERLY MUELLER, District Judge.

         Defendant is proceeding pro se in the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under Local Rule 302(c)(21).

         On November 14, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on defendant and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and recommendations. The fourteen-day period has expired, and defendant has not 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 carefully 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 November 14, 2011 (ECF No. 4) are adopted in full;

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

         3. The Clerk is directed to close this case.