(PS) Murphy v. Colony Ins. Co. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANNO O. MURPHY ESQ. SR., DBA No. 2:20-cv-0303 JAM CKD (PS) SHEETMETAL & ASSOCIATES, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER v. 14 CONOLY INSURANCE COMPANY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On August 31, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF. No. 19 6) herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 20 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On September 16, 2020, 21 plaintiffs filed objections to the proposed findings and recommendations (ECF. No. 7), which 22 have 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 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see 26 also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed 27 findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and 28 decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th 1 Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi 2 Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 3 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 4 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed findings and recommendations in full. 5 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 6 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed August 31, 2020, are ADOPTED; 7 2. This action is dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); 8 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 9 10 DATED: December 7, 2020 /s/ John A. Mendez 11 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28