Gleason v. Glasscock, et al

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/31/11 ORDERING the findings and recommendations 22 ADOPTED; dfts CHRB's motion to dismiss 7 is GRANTED; dft CHRB's motion to strike 7 is DENIED AS MOOT; and dft California Horse Racing Board is DISMISSED from this action. (Carlos, K)

(PS) Gleason v. Glasscock, et al

Doc. 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Defendants. 16 __________________________________/ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 On February 28, 2011, 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. Plaintiff filed objections on March 17, 2011, defendant California Horse Racing Board filed a reply thereto on March 23, 2011, and they were considered by the undersigned. This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK GLEASON, Plaintiff, vs. ANNE GLASSCOCK; THE CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BOARD,

No. 2:10-cv-02030-MCE-EFB PS

ORDER

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

As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. 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 February 28, 2011, are ADOPTED; 2. Defendant CHRB's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 7, is granted; 3. Defendant CHRB's motion to strike, ECF No. 7, is denied as moot; and 4. Defendant CHRB is dismissed from this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2011 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2