(PS) Gigena v. Baker ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GABRIEL GIGENA, No. 2:22-cv-00206-TJN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 DONALD BAKER, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On February 10, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18 3), which were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On February 17, 2022, Plaintiff 20 filed a supplement to petition for writ of mandate and administrative stay. (ECF No. 4.) The 21 Court construes this filing as Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations, which 22 have been considered by the Court. 23 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 24 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 25 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 26 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection 27 has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. 28 See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s 1 | conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 2 | 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 3 The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 4 | concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 5 | □□ □□ HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 3) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 7 2. The action is DISMISSED as frivolous; and 8 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 9 DATED: March 9, 2022 10 /) M “ \/ fb 12 a AWN ok Troy L. Nunley» } 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28