(PS) Merkelo v. Spidell, No. 2:2014cv02010 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and REMANDING CASE to Sacramento County Superior Court signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/28/14. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Manzer, C)

Download PDF
(PS) Merkelo v. Spidell Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JERRY MERKELO, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, No. 2:14-cv-2010-KJM-EFB PS ORDER v. RODNEY SPIDELL, Defendant. 16 17 On September 3, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 18 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 19 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On September 18, 2014, defendant 20 Rodney Spidell filed a motion for a ten-day extension of time to respond to the findings and 21 recommendations. ECF No. 4. In an order issued on October 1, 2014, Judge Brennan granted the 22 motion, allowing the parties an additional ten days from the date of that order to file objections. 23 ECF No. 5. On October 9, 2014, before the expiration of that ten-day period, this court adopted 24 Judge Brennan’s findings and recommendation and remanded the case to the Superior Court for 25 the County of Sacramento. ECF No. 6. To allow the parties time to file objections within the ten- 26 day period ordered by Judge Brennan, the court vacated its previous order adopting Judge 27 Brennan’s findings and recommendations and retained jurisdiction. ECF No. 7. The parties have 28 not since filed objections to Judge Brennan’s findings and recommendations. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 2 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 3 de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having 4 reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 5 and by the proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 3, 2014, are ADOPTED; 8 9 10 11 12 and 2. The above-captioned case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Sacramento. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 28, 2014. 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.