(PS) Q1, LLC et al v. County of Sacramento et al, No. 2:2008cv01564 - Document 39 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/17/10 ORDERING the Findings and Recommendations 38 filed 5/25/10 are ADOPTED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and the clerk is directed to close this case and vacated any pendings hearings. (Carlos, K)

Download PDF
(PS) Q1, LLC et al v. County of Sacramento et al Doc. 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Q1, LLC AND WILLIE JEFFERSON, 11 Plaintiffs, 12 13 CIV. S-08-1564 JAM KJN PS v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., ORDER 14 15 Defendants. ___________________________/ 16 On May 25, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 17 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 18 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 19 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff Willie Jefferson’s copy of the findings and 20 recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility 21 to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), 22 service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 23 Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 24 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 25 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 26 1983). Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 4 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed May 25, 2010, are ADOPTED; 5 2. This case is dismissed with prejudice; and 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and vacate any pending dates. 7 DATED: June 17, 2010 /s/ John A. Mendez U. S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.