(PS) Barnett v. CA DMV

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERTA BARNETT, No. 2:17-cv-1517-TLN-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 18 302(c)(19). On February 27, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations. 19 (ECF No. 81.) By order minute order issued on March 10, 2025, the magistrate ordered that any 20 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed by March 13, 2025. (ECF No. 21 83.) Plaintiff filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 84.) 22 Defendant filed a response. (ECF No. 86.) 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, including Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations, as 28 well as Defendant’s response, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 1 | by the record and by the proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 27, 2025 (ECF No. 81), are 4 ADOPTED in full; 5 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 76) is GRANTED; and 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 7 || Date: March 21, 2025 8 9 Ze 11 TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28