Blue Mountain Homes LLC v. Bell et al

Filing 16

ORDER adopting 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/26/12: This action is summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Solano. Plaintiff's ex parte application for adoption of the magistrate judge's recommendation to remand 6 as well as its motion to remand 10 are denied as moot. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.(Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

BLUE MOUNTAIN HOMES LLC,
Plaintiff,

10
v.

11
12

No. CIV S-11-2155 KJM DAD PS

RONNIE D. BELL, et al.,
Defendants.

13

ORDER
/

14
15

Defendant Renee L.H. Bell, who is proceeding pro se in the above-entitled

16

unlawful detainer action, filed a notice of removal and an application to proceed in forma

17

pauperis. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local

18

Rule 302(c)(21).
On August 22, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

19
20

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

21

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the

22

findings and recommendations. The fourteen-day period has expired, and no party has filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations.1

24

/////

25
1

26

The parties have filed documents other than objections outside the objection period.
These documents are addressed below.
1

1

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United

2

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

3

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

4

1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

5

be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 22, 2011 (ECF No. 5) are

8

adopted in full;

9
10
11

2. This action is summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County
of Solano;
3. Plaintiff’s ex parte application for adoption of the magistrate judge’s

12

recommendation to remand (ECF No. 6) as well as its motion to remand (ECF No. 10) are

13

denied as moot; and

14
15

4. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.
DATED: January 26, 2012.

16
17

/bluemtn-bell2155.jo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2