Ryan McMahon v. John Whitney, et al.

E.D. California

Ryan McMahon v. John Whitney, et al.

DecidedDecember 9, 2025

Docket2:23-cv-01972

StatusUnknown

This text of Ryan McMahon v. John Whitney, et al. (Ryan McMahon v. John Whitney, et al.) 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

Ryan McMahon v. John Whitney, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN MCMAHON, Case No. 2:23-cv-1972-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOHN WHITNEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 31, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and 19 recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any 20 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No 21 objections were filed. 22 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 23 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de 24 novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by 25 the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 26 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 27 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 28 ///// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed October 31, 2025, are ADOPTED; 3 2. This action 1s dismissed for the reasons set forth in the court’s August 5, 2025 order, 4 || see ECF No. 96; and 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 6 | DATED: December 8, 2026.

5 STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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 RYAN MCMAHON, Case No. 2:23-cv-1972-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOHN WHITNEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 31, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and 19 recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any 20 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No 21 objections were filed. 22 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 23 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de 24 novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by 25 the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 26 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 27 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 28 ///// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed October 31, 2025, are ADOPTED; 3 2. This action 1s dismissed for the reasons set forth in the court’s August 5, 2025 order, 4 || see ECF No. 96; and 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 6 | DATED: December 8, 2026.

5 STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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)

Ryan McMahon v. John Whitney, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryan-mcmahon-v-john-whitney-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack