(PS) Serris v. Chastaine ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BILL JOSEPH SERRIS, No. 2:22-cv-0434-JAM-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 SHAUNA CHASTAINE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On March 10, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18 7) which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to 19 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On March 11, 2022, 20 plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 8.) 21 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 22 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 23 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 24 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection 25 has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. 26 See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s 27 conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 28 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 1 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 2 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 7) are adopted in full; and 5 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 3) is denied without 6 prejudice. 7 8 DATED: March 16, 2022 /s/ John A. Mendez 9 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28