Cooley v. City of Vallejo et al

Filing 36

ORDER adopting Findings and Recommendations 34 signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/2/2014: The Findings and Recommendations 34 are ADOPTED. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 22 is DENIED. Defendants shall answer Plaintiff's first amended complaint within 21 days of this order. (Owen, K)

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
13
14
15

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

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On July 29, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 34),

18

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

19

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff

20

filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 35), which have been considered

21

by the court. Defendants did not file any objections to the findings and recommendations.

22

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an

23

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

24

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d

25

930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection

26

has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law.

27

See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s

28

conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d
1

1

452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

2

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

3

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

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 34) are ADOPTED.

6

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 22) is

7
8
9
10

denied.
3. Defendants shall answer Plaintiff’s first amended complaint within 21 days of this
order.
Dated: September 2, 2014

11
12
13
14

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2