(PS) Van den Heuvel v. Bowman

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL, No. 19-cv-00806-JAM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER RIECH,STEVEN RAWSON, 15 Defendants. 16

17 On May 18, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 18 were served on the plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on May 28, 20 2021, and they were considered by the undersigned. 21 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 22 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 23 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 24 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court 25 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 26 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 27 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 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 proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 4 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed May 18, 2021, are adopted; 5 2. The first amended complaint is dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a 6 claim; and 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 8 9 DATED: July 7, 2021 /s/ John A. Mendez 10 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28