(PS) Estrada v. Martin ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK RUDOLPH ESTRADA, No. 2:19–cv–2115–JAM–KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF Nos. 18, 21, 34, 36, 37, 38) 14 MATT MARTIN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On April 10, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18 36), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On April 24, 2020, 20 plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 38), which have been 21 considered by the court.1 22 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 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); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 25 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection 26 27 1 Plaintiff requested leave to file late objections, as he believed his objections were untimely due to the slow processing speed of the mail in prison. (ECF No. 37.) However, the court’s docket 28 reflects that plaintiff’s objections were timely filed, and so no extension was needed. 1 has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. 2 See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s 3 conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 4 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 5 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 6 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 36) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 9 2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 18, 21) are GRANTED; 10 3. Plaintiff’s request for “early subpoena” (ECF No. 34) is DENIED AS MOOT; 11 4. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and 12 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 13 DATED: May 26, 2020 14 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____ 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28