Merkelo v. Spidell
Filing
9
ORDER ADOPTING 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and REMANDING CASE to Sacramento County Superior Court signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/28/14. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Manzer, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JERRY MERKELO,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
No. 2:14-cv-2010-KJM-EFB PS
ORDER
v.
RODNEY SPIDELL,
Defendant.
16
17
On September 3, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,
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 days. On September 18, 2014, defendant
20
Rodney Spidell filed a motion for a ten-day extension of time to respond to the findings and
21
recommendations. ECF No. 4. In an order issued on October 1, 2014, Judge Brennan granted the
22
motion, allowing the parties an additional ten days from the date of that order to file objections.
23
ECF No. 5. On October 9, 2014, before the expiration of that ten-day period, this court adopted
24
Judge Brennan’s findings and recommendation and remanded the case to the Superior Court for
25
the County of Sacramento. ECF No. 6. To allow the parties time to file objections within the ten-
26
day period ordered by Judge Brennan, the court vacated its previous order adopting Judge
27
Brennan’s findings and recommendations and retained jurisdiction. ECF No. 7. The parties have
28
not since filed objections to Judge Brennan’s findings and recommendations.
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 reviewed
3
de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having
4
reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record
5
and by the proper analysis.
6
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
7
1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 3, 2014, are ADOPTED;
8
9
10
11
12
and
2. The above-captioned case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Sacramento.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 28, 2014.
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?