(PS) Narayan v. County of Sacramento ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PRAKASH NARAYAN, No. 2:19-cv-00466-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On January 24, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF 18 No. 166) 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. On February 8, 2022, 20 Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 169), which have been 21 considered by the Court. On February 14, 2022, the remaining Defendants filed a reply. (ECF 22 No. 170.) 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), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see 26 also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed 27 findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and 28 decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th 1 | Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi 2 | Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 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 | IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 166) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 7 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint, separately docketed as two events 8 (ECF Nos. 138, 141) is DENIED; 9 3. Plaintiff's Amended Ex Parte Application for Default Judgment (ECF No. 163) is 10 DENIED; 11 4. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 159) is GRANTED; 12 5. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the only remaining defendants the County of 13 Sacramento; Sacramento County Assessor; and Sacramento County Tax Collector Ben 14 Lamera on all claims asserted against them in the First Amended Complaint; and 15 6. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 16 | DATED: March 9, 2022 /) 17 ( | jf / 18 Vik 19 Troy L. Nuhlep ] United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28