(PS) Fullerton Henderson Spencer Stuart Romanov v. Chevron, No. 2:2009cv02231 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 09/08/09 ADOPTING 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; and DENYING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff's action is REMANDED to Sacramento County Superior Court. Certified copy of remand order sent to Sacramento County Superior Court. CASE CLOSED. (Streeter, J)

Download PDF
(PS) Fullerton Henderson Spencer Stuart Romanov v. Chevron Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 MARGARET FULLERTON HENDERSON SPENCER ROMANOV, 13 14 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff, 2:09-cv-2231-GEB-DAD-PS vs. CHEVRON, ORDER Defendant. / Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of removal of the above-captioned civil 19 action from the state court in which she had filed the case. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). 21 On August 21, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 22 herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections 23 to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days and were to be titled 24 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff has filed a 25 document titled “Notice of Motion to Reverse Decision on Judge’s Finding.” The filing will be 26 construed as plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 2 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 3 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 4 proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff’s August 26, 2009 “motion” (Doc. No. 4) is construed as plaintiff’s 7 objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations; 8 2. The findings and recommendations filed August 21, 2009, are adopted in full; 9 3. Plaintiff’s August 12, 2009 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) 10 is denied; 11 4. Plaintiff’s action is remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court; and 12 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 13 Dated: September 8, 2009 14 15 16 GARLAND E. BURRELL, 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.