(PS) Krecz v. Google Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH KRECZ, No. 2:18-cv-01585-JAM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GOOGLE INC., (ECF Nos. 31, 32.) 15 Defendant. 16 17 On January 4, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF 18 No. 32), which were served on the parties. On January 11, 2021, plaintiff filed objections to the 19 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 33), which have been considered by the court. 20 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 21 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 22 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 23 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection 24 has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. 25 See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s 26 conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 27 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 28 //// 1 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 2 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 32) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 5 2. Plaintiff’s motion to reopen this case (ECF No. 31) is DENIED; and 6 3. The case remains Closed. 7 8 DATED: January 28, 2021 /s/ John A. Mendez 9 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28