(PS) Fullerton Henderson Spencer Stuart Romanov v. Ministry of Finance Federal Reseve of Germany, No. 2:2009cv02230 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER adopting 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 12/7/09: This case is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Sacramento. The Clerk is directed to close this case. (Kaminski, H)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Fullerton Henderson Spencer Stuart Romanov v. Ministry of Finance Federal Reseve of Germany Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARGARET FULLERTON HENDERSON SPENCER STUART ROMANOV, 11 Plaintiff, CIV-S-09-2230 JAM GGH PS 12 vs. 13 14 MINISTRY OF FINANCE FEDERAL RESERVE OF GERMANY, 15 16 Defendant. ORDER __________________________________/ 17 On August 25, 2009, 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. On August 27, 2009, plaintiff 20 filed a document entitled “Notice of Motion – Reverse Decision On Judge’s Finding” which is 21 construed as objections to the findings and recommendations, and they were considered by the 22 district judge. 23 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to 24 which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 25 Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 26 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. 2 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 3 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 4 1983). 5 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 6 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Findings and Recommendations in full. Accordingly, 7 IT IS ORDERED that: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 25, 2009, are ADOPTED; 9 2. The above-captioned case is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of 10 California in and for the County of Sacramento; and 11 12 3. The Clerk is directed to close this case. DATED: December 7, 2009 13 14 15 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE henderson2230.jo 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.
