(PS) Schmitz v. Asman ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS SCHMITZ, et al., No. 2:20–cv–00195–JAM-CKD PS 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 A. ASMAN, et al., (ECF Nos. 165, 171) 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 19, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF 18 No. 171), 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 that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 26 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 171) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 28 2. Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from the court’s prior order denying leave to reassert their 1 § 1983 claims against defendants Asman and Bradley (ECF No. 165) is DENIED; and 2 3. The case is referred again to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 3 4 Dated: December 20, 2021 /s/ John A. Mendez 5 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28