Knox v. Sacramento Bee

Filing 14

ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 04/27/10 ADOPTING 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DISMISSING with Prejudice Amended Complaint, CASE CLOSED. (Williams, D) Modified on 4/28/2010 (Williams, D).

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 vs. THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY, Defendant. __________________________________/ On March 25, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On April 6, 2010, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. "A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The court presumes that any findings of fact not objected to are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de 1 ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANTHONY MARCELOUS KNOX, SR., Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-09-3550-FCD-KJN-PS

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

novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed March 25, 2010, are ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to allege a proper basis for this court's federal subject matter jurisdiction; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. DATED: April 27, 2010.

_______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2