Castaneda v. USA
Filing
16
ORDER ADOPTING 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DENYING 9 Petition for Approval of Minor's Compromise, Without Prejudice signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/14/2019. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
E.C., a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Case No. 1:17-cv-00209-LJO-SAB
Litem, Whitney Castaneda,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
Plaintiff,
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S
v.
PETITION FOR MINOR’S COMPROMISE
14
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
(ECF Nos. 9, 12, 13, 14)
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
Plaintiff E.C., by and through his guardian ad litem, filed this action in the California
19 Superior Court, County of Tulare alleging a negligence claim against Patricia Olise and the
20 Tulare Community Health Clinic. (ECF No. 1 at 5-9.) On February 13, 2017, the United States
21 of America removed this action to the Eastern District of California and filed a notice of
22 substitution in place of the defendants in this action. (ECF No. 1.) On February 15, 2017, an
23 order was filed requiring Plaintiff to file a petition for appointment of a guardian ad litem within
24 ten days. (ECF No. 4.) On February 5, 2017, the United States filed a motion to dismiss the
25 complaint which was referred to the undersigned. (ECF Nos. 5, 6, 7.) On February 23, 2017, the
26 parties filed a stipulation to dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.) On
27 February 24, 2019, an order issued directing the Clerk of the Court to close this matter pursuant
28 to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 8.)
1
1
On January 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for approval of a minor’s compromise.
2 (ECF No. 9.) The matter was was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28
3 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
4
On February 27, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations
5 (“F&Rs”). The F&Rs recommended that the petition for minor’s compromise be denied without
6 prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The F&Rs were served on the parties and contained notice that
7 any objections to the F&Rs were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service.
8 The period for filing objections has passed and no objections have been filed.
9
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
10 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the F&Rs
11 to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
12
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
13
1.
The F&Rs, filed February 27, 2019, is ADOPTED IN FULL; and
14
2.
The petition for approval of minor’s compromise is DENIED without prejudice.
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
March 14, 2019
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?