(PS) Finney v. Newsom ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHESTER FINNEY, No. 2:21–cv–1853–WBS–KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 7.) 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On November 4, 2021 the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18 7), 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. After the magistrate 20 judge granted an extension of time to file objections, plaintiff did so file (ECF No. 11); these 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 (th 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. 7) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 6 2. Plaintiffs claim against defendant Newsom is DISMISSED and leave to amend is 7 DENIED; 8 3. Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is DENIED as moot; and 9 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 10 | Dated: December 20, 2021 eb bleaw~ A. (htt -— 11 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28