(PS) Alcala v. Murphy ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSE ALCALA, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00969-KJM-CKD PS 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 THERESA MURPHY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On April 28, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF. 18 No. 45), 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 days. On May 11, 2020, plaintiffs 20 filed objections to the proposed findings and recommendations (ECF. No. 46), which have been 21 considered by the court. 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), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see 25 also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed 26 findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the presumes that any finding of fact are 27 correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s 28 conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 1 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district 2 court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and 3 recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 28, 2020, are ADOPTED. 6 2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED (ECF Nos. 31, 32). 7 3. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint is DENIED (ECF Nos. 40, 44). 8 4. The action is DISMISSED without leave to amend. 9 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 10 DATED: September 30, 2020. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28