Wall v. Sebelius, No. 2:2005cv02553 - Document 209 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 1/8/09 ORDERING that the Findings and Recommendations 202 are ADOPTED; and Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, 165 , is GRANTED as to the Third C ause of Action, and the First Cause of Action insofar as it alleges the non-existence of informal procedures for challenging and rectifying a tentative requirement to repay Medicare for conditional payments made prior to payment by a primary payer. (This order resolves the entire docket # 165).(Becknal, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wall v. Sebelius Doc. 209 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAMELA WALL, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, 12 13 CIV-S-05-2553 FCD GGH vs. 14 MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, 15 Defendant. 16 ORDER __________________________________/ 17 On October 29, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 18 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff filed objections on 20 November 13, 2008, and they were considered by the district judge. 21 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to 22 which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 23 Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 24 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, 25 the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. 26 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 2 1983). 3 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 4 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Findings and Recommendations in full. 5 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 6 7 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed October 29, 2008, are ADOPTED; and 2. Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, filed August 1, 2008, 9 (docket # 165), is granted as to the Third Cause of Action, and the First Cause of Action insofar 10 as it alleges the non-existence of informal procedures for challenging and rectifying a tentative 11 requirement to repay Medicare for conditional payments made prior to payment by a primary 12 payer. (This order resolves the entire docket # 165). 13 DATED: January 8, 2009. 14 15 16 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
