Amery Gaspard et al v. DEA Task Force et al

Filing 66

ORDER Accepting Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell: IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that (1) the following claims (listed in order) are dismissed without leave to amend and with pr ejudice and (2) the following remaining claims (listed in order) are dismissed with leave to amend. If Plaintiffs' wish to pursue the above-noted claims, Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") shall be due within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of the District Court's Order. See document for further information. (lwag)

1

O

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AMERY GASPARD, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

DEA TASK FORCE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. EDCV 15-01802-BRO (KES)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and

19

all the records and files herein, along with the Report and Recommendation of

20

the United States Magistrate Judge. No Objections to the Report and

21

Recommendation have been filed by any party. The Court hereby approves

22

and accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the United

23

States Magistrate Judge.

24
25

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that (1) the following claims are
dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice:

26

• All claims against the Moving Defendants City of Ontario,

27

County of Riverside, Sheriff Sniff, County of San Bernardino and Sheriff

28

McMahon;

1

• All claims against Defendant “DEA Task Force;”

2

• All claims against Defendant Farrow;

3

• All claims under sections 1985 and 1986; and

4

• All section 1983 claims against Defendant Rosenburg; and

5

(2) the following remaining claims are dismissed with leave to
amend:

6
7

• All section 1983 claims against the City of San Bernardino and

8

the Individual SBPD Defendants (Karmann, Schuelke, Thornburg,

9

Vasquez, Vega, Campos, Madrigal, Valdivia, Bennett, Luna and
Koalou);

10

• All Bivens claims against the City of San Bernardino, the

11

Individual SBPD Defendants and Defendant Rosenburg;

12

• All of Plaintiff Gaspard’s ADA claims against the City of San

13

Bernardino and the Individual SBPD Defendants.

14

If Plaintiffs’ wish to pursue the above-noted claims, Plaintiffs’

15

Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) shall be due within thirty (30)

16
17

//

18

//

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
2

1

days from the date of entry of the District Court’s Order.1

2
3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 4, 2016

6

___________________________
HON. BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

If Plaintiffs’ choose to file a Second Amended Complaint, it

should bear the docket number assigned in this case, be labeled “Second
Amended Complaint,” and be complete in and of itself without reference
to the original or First Amended Complaint or any other pleading or
document. Plaintiffs may serve the Second Amended Complaint on all
Defendants who have appeared by serving their counsel of record.
Plaintiffs must serve any Defendants who have not yet appeared in a
manner that satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and then file a
proof of service declaration.

27
28
3