(PC) Zwirn v. Ruggiero ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ZWIRN, No. 2: 19-cv-01173-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 A. RUGGIERO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this action in the Amador Superior 18 Court on February 21, 2017. (See ECF No. 1.) On June 25, 2019, Defendant Ruggiero removed 19 the action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, on the grounds that Plaintiff raises a federal question. 20 (Id.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 21 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On August 1, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 23 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 24 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 5.) 25 Plaintiff was re-served with the Findings and Recommendations on August 21, 2019, following 26 Plaintiff’s Request for Status. (See ECF No. 6.) Neither party has filed objections to the Findings 27 and Recommendations. 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 2 United 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 School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 4 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal 5 standards, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and 6 by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 1, 2019 (ECF No. 5), are adopted in 9 full; and 10 2. This action is REMANDED to the Amador County Superior Court. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: October 29, 2019 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28