United States of America v. Torrance

Filing 46

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 7/29/2020 ADOPTING 37 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 34 respondent's motion to dismiss this case. Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 44 at 16-26) is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:18-cv-1631-JAM-EFB PS

v.

ORDER

BRIAN TORRANCE,

15

Respondent.

16
17

On April 22, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

18

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

19

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Respondent filed objections on July 6,

20

2020, and petitioner filed a response to the objections on July 21, 2020. Both filings were

21

considered by the undersigned. 1

22

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

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), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As

25

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court

26
27
28

1

Within his objections, respondent requests he be appointed counsel. ECF No. 44 at 1626. Because he has failed to demonstrate that appointing counsel is appropriate, that request is
denied.

1

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. 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 Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

4

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

5

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

6

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

7

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed April 22, 2020, are adopted;

8

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss this case (ECF No. 34) is denied; and

9

3. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 44 at 16-26) is denied.

10
11
12
13

DATED: July 29, 2020
/s/ John A. Mendez____________

_____

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2