Rogers v. Vargas, et al.
Filing
14
ORDER Adopting 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING, with Prejudice, Federal Claims for Failure to State a Claim and REMANDING Action to State Court for Consideration of any Remaining State Law Claims signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/22/2011. CASE CLOSED. Copy of remand order sent to Kings County Superior Court. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
CHARLES A. ROGERS
CASE NO.
1:09-cv-01027-AWI-GBC (PC)
7
Plaintiff,
8
9
v.
10
11
12
S. PONCE, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING, WITH
PREJUDICE, FEDERAL CLAIMS FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND
REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT
FOR CONSIDERATION OF ANY
REMAINING STATE LAW CLAIMS
Defendants.
(Doc. No. 13)
13
/ CLERK SHALL CLOSE CASE
14
15
16
ORDER
17
Plaintiff Charles A. Rogers (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate, is proceeding pro se in this
18
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United State
19
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
Defendants removed this action from Kings County Superior Court on June 11,
21
22
2009. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s original Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend for
23
failure to state any claims. (ECF No. 7.) On December 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed his First
24
Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 8.) The Magistrate Judge dismissed the First Amended
25
Complaint, with leave to amend, on January 7, 2011. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed a Second
26
Amended Complaint on February 10, 2011. (ECF No. 12.) Upon screening, the Magistrate
27
1
1
Judge recommended dismissal of federal claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim
2
upon which relief may be granted and remand of state claims to state court on February
3
22, 2011. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff was directed to file Objections within thirty days. Plaintiff
4
5
has failed to file any Objections or otherwise respond to the Court’s Order. Further,
6
Defendants have filed no response or objection to the recommendation that the Court
7
remand this case to the Kings County Superior Court.
8
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 302,
9
this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the
10
entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the
11
12
record and by proper analysis.
13
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
14
1.
The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 22, 2011, is ADOPTED;
15
2.
Plaintiff’s Federal Claims contained in his Second Amended Complaint are
16
17
DISMISSED withprejudice;
3.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court DECLINES to exercise
18
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims,;
19
20
4.
further proceedings concerning any state claims; and
21
22
23
The action is REMANDED forthwith to Kings County Superior Court for
5.
The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated:
0m8i78
July 22, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26
27
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?