(PS) Nible v. Macomber

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM LYLE NIBLE, No. 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 18) 14 JEFF MACOMBER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On October 15, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 18 recommendations (ECF No. 18), which were served on the parties and which 19 contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 20 filed within fourteen (14) days. On October 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled 21 “motion for reconsideration,” which the Court interprets as objections to the findings 22 and recommendations. (ECF No. 22.) The motion was timely filed within the objection 23 period, and in the motion, Plaintiff objects to the findings and recommendations. (Id. 24 at 2.) Further, a motion for reconsideration filed before a ruling on the findings and 25 recommendations is premature. Plaintiff’s objections have been considered by the 26 court. 27 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to 28 which an objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 1 | Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also 2 | Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the 3 | proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its 4 | correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 5 | 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law are 6 | reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th 7 | Cir. 1983). 8 The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause 9 | appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and 10 | recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 12 and 13 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary 14 Injunction (ECF No. 17) is DENIED; and 15 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further 16 pretrial proceedings. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: _December 27, 2024 “Daal J CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28