(PS)Thacker v. AT&T Mobility, LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID C. THACKER, No. 2:20–cv–0255–KJM–CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF Nos. 42, 47) 14 AT&T CORPORATION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On March 9, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations (ECF 18 No. 47), 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. No objections were 20 filed. Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 21 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 22 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 23 1983). 24 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 25 concludes it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS 26 HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 47) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 28 ///// ] 2. Plaintiffs motion to amend (ECF No. 42) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 2 PART, as follows: 3 a. Leave to file the proposed amended complaint as a Second Amended Complaint is 4 DENIED; 5 b. Leave to jon AT&T Phone / U-Verse and AT&T Communications, LLC as 6 additional defendants in this action is DENIED; and 7 c. Leave to jom AT&T Mobility, LLC as an additional defendant in this action is 8 GRANTED; 9 3. The Clerk of Court shall update the docket to add “AT&T Mobility, LLC” as a defendant, 10 represented by the same counsel currently reflected for defendant AT&T Corporation. No 11 summons needs to be issued, as AT&T Mobility has already appeared in the case; and 12 4. This case is referred again to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 13 | DATED: April 1, 2021. 14 15 6 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28