(PS) Davis v. The John Stewart Company, No. 2:2010cv02003 - Document 32 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER adopting 30 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 4/13/11: 21 , 23 Motion to Remand is granted. This action is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Sacramento. Copy of remand order sent to Superior Court court. CASE CLOSED.(Kaminski, H)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Davis v. The John Stewart Company Doc. 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 STAFFORD B. DAVIS, 11 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-2003 FCD EFB PS vs. 12 13 THE JOHN STEWART COMPANY, 14 Defendant. __________________________________/ ORDER 15 On March 8, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 16 17 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 18 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 19 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v. 20 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 21 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 22 1983). The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 23 24 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 25 //// 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed March 8, 2011, are 3 ADOPTED; 4 2. Plaintiff’s motion to remand, Dckt. Nos. 21 and 23, is granted; and 5 3. This action is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California in and 6 for the County of Sacramento. 7 DATED: April 13, 2011. 8 9 10 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
