-GGH (PS) Johnson v. Mitchell et al, No. 2:2010cv01968 - Document 68 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 6/7/11 ADOPTING 62 Findings and Recommendations, GRANTING 25 Trustee's Motion to Intervene and DENYING 27 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss. (Donati, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-GGH (PS) Johnson v. Mitchell et al Doc. 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SHEPARD JOHNSON, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CIV S-10-1968 GEB GGH PS vs. CHESTER MITCHELL, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 __________________________________/ 15 ORDER On April 25, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 16 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 17 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.1 18 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 19 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 20 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 21 1983). 22 23 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Findings and Recommendations in full. 24 25 26 1 Plaintiff did file a motion to deny trustee’s intervention on May 12, 2011; however, it could not be construed as objections because it was untimely as such. It was instead construed as a motion for reconsideration and resolved by order of June 1, 2011. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations filed April 25, 2011, are ADOPTED and 3 4 1. Trustee’s Motion to Intervene, filed January 4, 2011, as amended (dkt. #s 25, 30), is granted; and 5 2. Trustee’s motion to dismiss, filed January 4, 2011, as amended (dkt. #s 27, 6 29), is denied. 7 Dated: June 7, 2011 8 9 10 GARLAND E. BURRELL, 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.
