(PS) Miles v. Sutter County Sherriff
(PS) Miles v. Sutter County Sherriff
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGIA MILES, et al., No. 2:24-cv-01196-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 SUTTER COUNTY SHERRIFF, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs Georgia Miles and Hiawatha Miles (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the above- 18 entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 30, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 8.) On November 12, 23 2024, Plaintiff Georgia Miles filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 9.) 24 These objections 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 28930, 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. 7 | Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 8) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 9 2. Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 10 | Procedure 41(b); and 11 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Date: February 10, 2025 14 7, Hy IS TROY L. NUNLEY 16 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown