Opinion
No. 2:06-cv-0021-MCE-GGH-PS.
August 8, 2006
ORDER
On May 19, 2006, 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 ten (10) days. Plaintiff filed Objections on May 31, 2006, and they were considered by the district judge.
Defendants' contention that Plaintiff's Objections are untimely is without merit as they were filed within ten court days after the Findings and Recommendations were issued. E.D.L.R. 72-303(b). Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, filed June 1, 2006, does not change the outcome of this ruling.
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. U.S., 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 Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed May 19, 2006, are ADOPTED;
2. The Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Lerner, Ramirez and Johnson, filed February 28, 2006, is granted;
3. The Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Maris, filed March 21, 2006, is granted; and
4. This action is dismissed with prejudice.