Schmidt, et al v. United States of America, et al

Filing 124

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/10/2014 ORDERING that the 120 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED in full. Defendant's 97 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' 109 counter-motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Judgment is entered for defendant. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LONNIE G. SCHMIDT, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No. 2:09-cv-0660 LKK GGH PS

v.

ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

15

Defendant.

16
On October 2, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

17
18

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings

19

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Objections were filed on October

20

21, 2013,1 a reply was filed on October 29, 2013, and they were considered by the district judge.
This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which

21
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
28

1

Although the objections were not timely filed, they have been considered.
1

1

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

2

1983).

3

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

4

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the October 2, 2013 Findings and Recommendations in

5

full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

6
7
8
9

1. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed April 25, 2013, (ECF No. 97), is
granted;
2. Plaintiffs’ counter-motion for summary judgment, filed June 6, 2013, (ECF No. 109),
is denied; and

10

3. Judgment is entered for defendant.

11

DATED: February 10, 2014.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2