(PS) United States of America v. Lopez, No. 2:2010cv02438 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 02/08/11 ADOPTING 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; GRANTING (4) Motion to Remand on the ground that this court lacks jurisdicitoin over plaintiff's claims; REMANDING CASE to Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED.(Williams, D)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) United States of America v. Lopez Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, 11 12 vs. 13 No. CIV-S-10-2438-WBS-KJN-PS MARIA LOPEZ, 14 15 Defendant. __________________________________/ ORDER 16 On December 16, 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. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 19 20 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 21 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 22 1983). The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 23 24 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 25 //// 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed December 16, 2010, are 3 4 5 6 ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Dkt. No. 4) is granted on the ground that this court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims; and 3. This matter is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of 7 Sacramento. 8 DATED: February 8, 2011 9 10 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.
