People of the State of California v. Gilberto Valadezcanchola

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

People of the State of California v. Gilberto Valadezcanchola

Trial Court Opinion

1

2

3

4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Case No. 1:25-cv-00904-JLT-EPG CALIFORNIA, 12 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS 13 ACTION BE REMANDED TO STATE v. COURT 14 GILBERTO VALADEZCANCHOLA, (Docs. 5, 61.) 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 Gilberto Valadezcanchola removed this matter to this Court based related to criminal 19 charges against him for unlicensed driving and wet/reckless from June 2, 2022. In addition, 20 Defendant claims there is a bench warrant against him, issued February 23, 2023, for non- 21 completion of community service and unpaid fines. (Doc. 1.) This matter was referred to a United 22 States magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On September 18, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and 24 recommendations, recommending that this action be remanded to the Superior Court of 25 California, County of Tulare (Doc. 5.) The Court served the findings and recommendations on 26 27 1 A Corrected Findings and Recommendations was filed on September 22, 2025 (Doc. 6.) This version 28 corrected the case number. No other changes were made. 1 | Defendant and notified him that any objections were due within 30 days. (Ud. at 5.) The Court 2 | advised her that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 3 | rights on appeal.” (/d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

772 F.3d 834, 838-39

(9th Cir. 2014).) 4 | Defendant did not file objections and the time to do so has passed. 5 According to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de 6 | novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the objections, the 7 | Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 8 | Thus, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 18, 2025, are ADOPTED 10 IN FULL. (Doc. 5.) 11 2. This case be REMANDED to Tulare County Superior Court. 12 3. Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2.) be DENIED as moot. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: _ October 22, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown