(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 NYLE NIBLE, No. 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 48.) 14 JEFF MACOMBER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On January 27, 2025, the Magistrate Judge 19 filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 48), which were served on the parties 20 and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations 21 were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On February 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed late 22 objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF Nos. 52, 53.) On January 20, 23 2025, Defendant Raskin-Li filed a reply to Plaintiff’s objections. (ECF No. 57.) These 24 filings have been considered by the Court. 25 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to 26 which an objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 27 Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also 28 Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the 1 | proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its 2 || correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 3 | 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge's conclusions of law are 4 | reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Schoo! Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th 5 | Cir. 1983). 6 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause 7 || appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and 8 || recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 48) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 10 2. Defendant Raskin-Li’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 30) the claims against her 11 inthe FAC is GRANTED without leave to amend; 12 3. Defendant Raskin-Li is dismissed from this action; and 13 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further 14 pretrial proceedings. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 | Dated: _March 28, 2025 “Dane A Ch brett Hon. Daniel alabretta 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28