Taylor v. Ingoglia
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 55 ). Signed by JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 4/5/2016. -- IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 74.2, the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF RICHARD K. TAYLOR, JR.'S MOTION FOR RULE 60 RELIEF FROM JUDGEMENT OR ORDER (ECF No. 55) isadopted as the opinion and order of this Court. (ecs, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
RICHARD K. TAYLOR, SR.,
through his personal
representative MELODY K.
TAYLOR LINDSEY, MELODY K.
individually, RICHARD K.
TAYLOR, JR., DONNETTA
the Donald and Patricia
Ingoglia Family Trust,
ESTATE OF DONALD INGOGLIA, )
CIVIL NO. 14-00223 HG-RLP
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 55)
Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 55) were filed
and served on all parties on March 11, 2016.
objection was filed by Plaintiff on March 28, 2016.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s objection was timely.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A magistrate judge may be assigned to prepare
findings and recommendation for a district judge on a
matter that is dispositive of a claim.
Fed. R. Civ. P.
If a party objects to the magistrate judge’s
findings and recommendation, the district court must
review de novo those portions to which objection is
United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673
(1980); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
The district court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings and recommendation made by the magistrate
judge, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge
with further instructions.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. at 673-
74; Fed. R. Civ. Pro 72(b)(3).
De novo review means the district court must
consider the matter anew, as if the matter had not been
heard before and no previous decision rendered.
v. Commissioner, 954 F.2d 1495, 1497 (9th Cir. 1992).
The district court must arrive at its own independent
conclusion about those portions to which objections are
made, but a de novo hearing is not required.
States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-18 (9th Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff has not raised any new arguments in his
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
The Court finds that the Magistrate
Judge’s order clearly and correctly sets forth the law
applicable to the matter before the Court.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that,
to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(C)
and Local Rule 74.2, the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DENY PLAINTIFF RICHARD K. TAYLOR, JR.’S MOTION FOR RULE
60 RELIEF FROM JUDGEMENT OR ORDER (ECF No. 55) is
adopted as the opinion and order of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 5, 2016, Honolulu, Hawaii.
United States District Judge
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?