(PS) State of California v. K.W. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, No. 2:21-cv-00806-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 K.W., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This is a case originally filed by the State of California in El Dorado County Superior 18 Court as a juvenile wardship petition against K.W., a minor. K.W.’s mother, proceeding pro se, 19 filed removal papers in K.W.’s proceedings and requested permission to proceed in forma 20 pauperis. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 21 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(21). 22 On May 24, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3), 23 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 24 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were timely 25 filed.1 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 26 1 On June 23, 2021, K.W.’s mother filed a motion for extension of time to file objections 27 and motion for permission to file online. (ECF No. 7.) As noted in the findings and recommendations, K.W.’s mother has not shown that she has standing to file documents on 28 K.W.’s behalf. Therefore, the Court DENIES K.W.’s mother’s request. 1 | United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 2 || reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 3 | 1983). 4 The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 5 | concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 6 | □□ □□ HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 8 2. K.W.’s mother’s motion for extension of time to file objections and motion to file online 9 (ECF No. 7) is DENIED; 10 3. This case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of El 11 Dorado; and 12 4. Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT. 13 | DATE: July 7, 2021 14 hy / 15 “ the 16 Troy L. Nuhlep ] 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28