(PS) Van Den Heuvel v. Freas ( 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-00352-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 EDDIE FREAS et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On July 23, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 18 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 11.) On August 10, 2020, 20 Plaintiff filed objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 13.) The 21 Court has considered Plaintiff’s objections. 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), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see 25 also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed 26 findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and 27 decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th 28 Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi 1 Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 2 The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and concludes that it is appropriate 3 to adopt the proposed findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 4 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed July 23, 2020 (ECF No. 11), are 5 ADOPTED IN FULL; and 6 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend. 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 DATED: August 25, 2020 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28