(PC) Van Moorsel v. State of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEBORAH VAN MOORSEL, 12 Plaintiff, No. 2:24-CV-3390-TLN-DMC-P 13 v. 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ORDER 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Deborah Van Moorsel (“Plaintiff”) brings several state law claims based on the 18 allegation that she was sexually abused while incarcerated at the California Institution for 19 Women. (See generally ECF No. 6.) On June 9, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and 20 recommendations which were served on the parties, and which contained notice that any 21 objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 10.) This deadline has passed, 22 and no objections have been filed. 23 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 24 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 25 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 26 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 27 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 28 the record and by the proper analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 9, 2025, (ECF No. 10), are ADOPTED in 3 full; 4 2. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to remand, (ECF No. 7), is GRANTED and this matter is 5 remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court; 6 3. Defendants’ request for clarification, (ECF No. 3), is DENIED as moot; and 7 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this file. 8 Date: August 27, 2025 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28