(PS) Sheffield Financial v. Robinson ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHEFFIELD FINANCIAL, No. 2:19-cv-02378-JAM-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7) 14 CAMERON ROBINSON, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On January 10, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 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. No objections were filed. 20 Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 21 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 22 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 23 1983). 24 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 25 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed January 10, 2020, are ADOPTED; 3 2. Plaintiff’s request to remand this case is GRANTED; 4 3. This case is remanded to the Superior Court of California for the County of Stanislaus; 5 4. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is denied as moot; 6 5. Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied as moot; 7 6. Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees is denied; and 8 7. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 9 DATED: February 6, 2020 10 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____ 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28