Archer et al v. City of Taft, Ca. Inc. et al

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING 7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/11/2012. Louise Hudgens, Craig Jones, Orchel Krier, Paul Linder, Randy Miller, Craig Noble, Dave Noerr, David Prentice, Cliff Thompson, Ron Waldrop, City of Taft, Ca. Inc. and Bob Gorson terminated. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 DARRELL ARCHER, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) ) ) CITY OF TAFT, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________________ ) Case No.: 1:12-cv-00261 LJO JLT ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Doc. 7) 17 Darrell Archer and Keitha Darquea (“Plaintiffs”) initiated this action by filing a complaint 18 on February 23, 2012. (Doc. 1). The Court screened Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and dismissed it with 19 leave to amend. (Doc. 3). Pursuant to the Court’s order, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended 20 Complaint on May 15, 2012. (Doc. 4). The Court screened the amended pleading, and 21 instructed Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint, or notify the Court of their willingness 22 to proceed only on claims found to be cognizable. (Doc. 5). On August 17, 2012, Plaintiffs filed 23 a notice of their intention to proceed only on cognizable claims. (Doc. 6). 24 Accordingly, on August 22, 2012, the Magistrate Judge recommended the action proceed 25 against defendants Jill Gipson, J.E. Burck Construction, and Joseph Burke, and that the 26 remaining defendants be dismissed. (Doc. 7). The Magistrate Judge determined Plaintiffs’ 27 causes of action against the remaining defendants either lacked factual support of failed as a 28 matter of law. Id. at 15. 1 1 Although Plaintiffs were granted fourteen days from August 22, 2012, or until September 2 5, 2012, to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations, they did not 3 do so. Notably, Plaintiffs were advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 4 may waive the right to appeal the Court’s order. (Doc. 7 at 16) (citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 5 1153 (9th Cir. 1991)). 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley 7 United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo 8 review of the case. Although granted fourteen days to file objections, Plaintiffs failed to do so. 9 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and 10 recommendation are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 12 1. 13 The Findings and Recommendations filed August 22, 2012 are ADOPTED IN FULL; 14 2. Defendants City of Taft, David Noerr, Randy Miller, Craig Noble, Paul Linder, 15 Cliff Thompson, Bob Gorson, Craig Jones, Orchel Krier, Ron Waldrop, David 16 Prentice, and Louise Hudgens are DISMISSED; 17 3. 18 Plaintiffs’ claim for a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is DISMISSED; 19 4. Plaintiffs’ claims for a violation of oath of office are DISMISSED; 20 5. Plaintiffs’ claims for a failure to perform a mandatory duty under Cal. Gov’t Code 21 § 815.6 are DISMISSED; 22 6. Plaintiffs’ claim for conversion under California law is DISMISSED; 23 7. Plaintiffs’ claim for a violation of California Civil Rights laws arising under Cal. 24 Civ. Code. §52.1 is DISMISSED; and 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 8. 2 The action SHALL proceed on the following claims: a. 3 Burke, and J.E. Burke Construction Inc.; and 4 b. 5 Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by defendants Jill Gipson, Joseph Burke, and J.E. Burke Construction Inc. 6 7 Violation of the Fourth Amendment by defendants Jill Gipson, Joseph IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 66h44d September 11, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?