Harrington v. Creditors Specialty Service, Inc.

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS 14 , in full, signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 8/31/2009. Plaintiff's 10 Motion for Default Judgment against defendant Creditors Specialty Service is GRANTED and upon plaintiff's filing of voluntary dismissal of his Supplemental State Law Invasion of Privacy Claim, Judgment is entered in amount of $5,439.00. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Defendant. 15 __________________________________/ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment came on regularly for hearing before the assigned magistrate judge on June 24, 2009. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(19) and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). On July 8, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No objections were filed. The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: //// 1 ORDER vs. CREDITORS SPECIALITY SERVICE, INC., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID HARRINGTON, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-0907 JAM EFB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed July 8, 2009, are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against defendant Creditors Specialty Service, Inc. is GRANTED; and 3. Upon the plaintiff's filing of a voluntary dismissal of his supplemental state law invasion of privacy claim, judgment is entered in the amount of $5,439.00. DATED: August 31, 2009 /s/ John A. Mendez U. S. District Court Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?