MP APW LLC v. Madrigal et al

Filing 8

ORDER adopting 7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/6/15: This action is summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MP APW LLC,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2905 KJM CKD PS

v.

ORDER

EDWARD MADRIGAL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Defendants, proceeding pro se, removed the above-entitled action from state court. The

17
18

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under Local Rule 302(c)(21).

19

On January 8, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were

20

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

21

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendants have not filed objections

22

to the findings and recommendations.

23

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

24

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

25

See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed

26

the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

27

the proper analysis.

28

/////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 8, 2015 are adopted in full; and

3

2. The above-entitled action is summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California,

4

County of Sacramento.

5

DATED: February 6, 2015

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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