(PS) Cody v. California Superior Court in and for Trinity County

Opinion

LEON CODY, ET AL., No. 2:19-cv-02383-JAM-KJN PS Plaintiffs, v. ORDER AND FOR TRINITY COUNTY, ET AL., Defendants.

On March 25, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF. No. 55) herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On April 6, 2020, plaintiffs filed objections to the proposed findings and recommendations (ECF. No. 56), which have been considered by the court. This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 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); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). 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 proposed findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed March 25, 2020, are ADOPTED. 2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED (ECF Nos. 34, 36, 39). 3. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend (ECF No. 43) is DENIED. 4. Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. DATED: May 26, 2020 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE