(PS) Knox v. Sacramento Bee, No. 2:2009cv03550 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 04/27/10 ADOPTING 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DISMISSING with Prejudice Amended Complaint, CASE CLOSED. (Williams, D) Modified on 4/28/2010 (Williams, D).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Knox v. Sacramento Bee Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY MARCELOUS KNOX, SR., Plaintiff, 11 12 13 No. CIV-S-09-3550-FCD-KJN-PS vs. THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY, ORDER 14 15 16 Defendant. __________________________________/ On March 25, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 17 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 18 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On April 6, 2010, plaintiff filed 19 objections to the findings and recommendations. 20 “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 21 [magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 22 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 23 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds 24 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The 25 court presumes that any findings of fact not objected to are correct. See Orand v. United States, 26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 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. 4 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 5 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed March 25, 2010, are ADOPTED; 6 2. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to allege a proper 7 8 9 basis for this court’s federal subject matter jurisdiction; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. DATED: April 27, 2010. 10 11 12 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
