Berry v. Yosemite Community College District et al

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 05/25/2017. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DEBRA BERRY,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:16-cv-00411-LJO-MJS
Plaintiff,

v.
YOSEMITE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(ECF No. 10)

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff Debra Berry proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this in this civil

19

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

20

1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

21

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District

22

Court for the Eastern District of California.

23

On March 7, 2017, the Magistrate Judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and

24

concluded that it stated the following cognizable claims: (1) a Fourteenth Amendment

25

Equal Protection claim for compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants

26

Jordan, Bambrosia, Carol, McCarthy, and Marks, in their individual capacities, and for

27

injunctive relief in their official capacities; (2) a First Amendment retaliation claim for

28

compensatory and punitive damages against Defendant Marks in his individual capacity;
1

1

(3) a Title VI intentional discrimination claim for injunctive relief and compensatory

2

damages against YCCD and MJC; and (4) a Title VI retaliation claim for injunctive relief

3

and compensatory damages against YCCD and MJC. The remaining claims were not

4

cognizable as pled. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint or

5

notify the Court in writing of her willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims.

6

Plaintiff chose to proceed only on the cognizable claims. (ECF No. 8.) Accordingly, on

7

May 2, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations for the matter

8

to proceed only on those claims, for all other claims and defendants to be dismissed with

9

prejudice, and for the matter to be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further

10

proceedings, including service of process. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff filed no objections and

11

the time for doing so has passed.

12

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has

13

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

14

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

15

proper analysis.

16

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1. The findings and recommendation filed May 2, 2017 are adopted in full;

18

2. Plaintiff shall proceed on the following claims: (1) a Fourteenth Amendment

19

Equal Protection claim for compensatory and punitive damages against

20

Defendants Jordan, Bambrosia, Carol, McCarthy, and Marks, in their

21

individual capacities, and for injunctive relief in their official capacities; (2) a

22

First Amendment retaliation claim for compensatory and punitive damages

23

against Defendant Marks in his individual capacity; (3) a Title VI intentional

24

discrimination claim for injunctive relief and compensatory damages

25

against YCCD and MJC; and (4) a Title VI retaliation claim for injunctive

26

relief and compensatory damages against YCCD and MJC;

27
28

3. All other claims asserted in the complaint and all other defendants are
dismissed with prejudice; and
2

1

4. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further

2

proceedings, including the initiation of service of process.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

May 25, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3