(PS) Eissel v. Wendy
(PS) Eissel v. Wendy
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Lothar R. Eissel, IV, Case No. 2:24-cv-01422-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 Wendy, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On October 30, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 18 were served on plaintiff, and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. See ECF No. 6. Plaintiff Lothar Eissel 20 filed objections on November 12, 2024, and they were considered by the undersigned, see ECF 21 No. 7. 22 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 23
602 F.2d 207, 208(9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de 24 novo. See Robbins v. Carey,
481 F.3d 1143, 1147(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by 25 the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 26 . . . .”). 27 ///// 28 ///// ] In accordance with the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 2 || court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 3 || findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 4 Eissel claims state probate proceedings have been unfair. See F&Rs at 2. He alleges the 5 || probate court did not tell him how it selected the administrator of the estate in question nor how 6 || the administrator appraised the value of the estate. See
id.While the court is not giving legal 7 || advice, Eissel might have claims he can bring in state court on this matter. This court, however, 8 | does not possess jurisdiction to hear Eissel’s claims. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed October 30, 2024, are adopted; 1] 2. The amended complaint, ECF No. 5, is DISMISSED without leave to amend for want 12 | of federal jurisdiction; and 13 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this action. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 | DATED: February 24, 2025.
17 ae . STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown