Cooley v. City of Vallejo et al

Filing 33

ORDER ADOPTING 29 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/21/2014. Plaintiff's 27 Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FREDERICK MARCELES COOLEY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-620-TLN-KJN PS

v.

ORDER

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On June 20, 2014, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations (ECF No.

17
18

29), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

19

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were

20

filed.
Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United

21
22

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

23

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

24

1983).

25

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

26

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly,

27

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

28

1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 29) are adopted.
1

1
2

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 27) is denied.
Dated: July 21, 2014

3
4
5
6

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2