(PS) Van Den Heuvel v. El Dorado County Judicial Court Seizures ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL, No. 2:20–cv–1173–JAM–CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 6) 14 EL DORADO COUNTY JUDICIAL COURT SEIZURES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On October 5, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF 19 No. 6), which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the 20 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On October 23, 2020, 21 plaintiff filed untimely objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 7),1 which have 22 nonetheless been considered by the court. 23 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 24 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 25 26 1 The document docketed as plaintiff’s objections bears the present case number but is captioned as “Objections to Judge Nunley Findings, Dated August 6, 2020” and shows a different set of 27 defendants. However, plaintiff attaches the magistrate judge’s October 5, 2020 findings and recommendations in this case, and the substance of the objections relates to the same judicial 28 immunity issue addressed therein. 1 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 2 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection 3 has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. 4 See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s 5 conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 6 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 7 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 8 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 6) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 11 2. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and 12 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 13 14 DATED: November 10, 2020 /s/ John A. Mendez 15 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28