(PS) Narayan v. USAA Ins. Co.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PRAKASH NARAYAN, No. 2:24-cv-2256-WBS-CSK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 USAA INSURANCE CO., et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 On August 27, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18 4), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On September 10, 20 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for an additional 45 days to file objections. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff 21 states he needs more time to compile a record from state court, asserting he intends to provide 22 records “back to 1998 from State court and this court past 5 years.” (Id.) Defendants opposed 23 additional time, noting Plaintiff provided no legal basis for the additional time and noting his 24 vexatious litigant status in state court. (ECF No. 6.) The magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s 25 motion for an extension of time to file objections for lack of good cause. (ECF No. 7.) This court 26 concurs in that decision. 27 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 28 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 1 | Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 2 | 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection 3 | has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. 4 | See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s 5 | conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 6 | 452, 454 (Oth Cir. 1983). 7 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 8 | concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 9 | IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 4) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 11 2. This case is REMANDED back to the Sacramento Superior Court; and 12 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 13 | Dated: October 3, 2024 dd Lleaw~ Vd. bE 14 WILLIAMB.SHUBB □ 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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