(PS)Murphy v. Allstate Insurance Company

E.D. California

(PS)Murphy v. Allstate Insurance Company

DecidedOctober 27, 2022

Docket2:20-cv-00753

StatusUnknown

This text of (PS)Murphy v. Allstate Insurance Company ((PS)Murphy v. Allstate Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PS)Murphy v. Allstate Insurance Company, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANNON O. MURPHY, SR., No. 2:20-cv-00753-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On September 15, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 18 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 20 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 21 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 22 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 23 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 24 Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 25 the record and by the proper analysis. 26 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 27 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 15, 2021, are ADOPTED; 28 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim; 1 3. Plaintiffs complaint and notice, ECF No. 10, is denied as moot; and 2 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 3 | DATED: October 26, 2022. 4 5 ( ti / ¢ q_/ ‘ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANNON O. MURPHY, SR., No. 2:20-cv-00753-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On September 15, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 18 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 20 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 21 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 22 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 23 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 24 Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 25 the record and by the proper analysis. 26 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 27 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 15, 2021, are ADOPTED; 28 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim; 1 3. Plaintiffs complaint and notice, ECF No. 10, is denied as moot; and 2 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 3 | DATED: October 26, 2022. 4 5 ( ti / ¢ q_/ ‘ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PS)Murphy v. Allstate Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/psmurphy-v-allstate-insurance-company-caed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack