Opinion
No. 2:06-cv-02099-MCE-GGH PS.
February 19, 2008
ORDER
On December 17, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiffs filed objections on January 3, 2008, defendants filed a reply to plaintiff's objections on January 14, 2008, and they were considered by the district judge.
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 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 ORDERED that:
Defendants' reply correctly points to a typographical error in the findings and recommendations at 3:2, 9:6, and 13:23, which refer to an incident dated September 20, 2006. The correct date is September 20, 2004. This error was based on a discrepancy in the amended complaint (docket #7) at 4:14-15, 6:14-19, and 7:15-16 which erroneously referred to an incident in September, 2006, but which plaintiffs intended to allege took place in September, 2004.
1. The Findings and Recommendations filed December 17, 2007, are ADOPTED;
2. Defendant Superior Court's motion to dismiss, filed June 21, 2007, is granted, and this defendant is dismissed;
3. Motion to dismiss and to strike by defendants Hyde, Pierce, Anderson, Bevugloz, and Franti, filed July 13, 2007, is granted in part;
4. The amended complaint is dismissed, and plaintiff Jones only is granted leave to file a second amended complaint in accordance with the findings and recommendations.