(PS) Ehrenreich v. Watson ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN STEPHEN EHRENREICH, No. 2:20–cv–2215–JAM–KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 3, 4) 14 MICHAEL WATSON, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On November 16, 2020 the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF 18 No. 4), 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 November 25, 20 2020, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 5), which have 21 been 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); 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 has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. 27 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 1 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 2 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 3 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 4) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 6 2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 3) is DENIED; 7 3. The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and 8 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 9 10 DATED: December 8, 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