(PS)Nelson-Rogers v. Allred ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARY ALICE NELSON ROGERS, No. 2:21-cv-1908-JAM-KJN (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF Nos. 4, 15, 18, 20, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34.) 14 DONNA ALLRED, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On February 9, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18 30) 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 14, 2022, 20 plaintiff filed opposition to the motions to dismiss, which the undersigned construes as plaintiff’s 21 objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff also filed a document 22 on February 28 captioned “Objections to Findings and Recommendations.” (ECF No. 32.) 23 Defendants Chase and Allred filed responses to plaintiff’s objections. (ECF Nos. 33, 34.) 24 Despite the latter of plaintiff’s filings being untimely, both have been considered by the court. 25 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 26 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 27 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 28 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection 1 has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. 2 See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s 3 conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 4 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 5 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 6 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 30) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 9 2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 4, 15, 18) are DENIED AS MOOT; 10 3. Plaintiff’s claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint are DISMISSED under res 11 judicata principles, and further leave to amend (see ECF No. 20) is DENIED; and 12 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case 13 14 15 DATED: March 16, 2022 /s/ John A. Mendez THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28