Christopher Krohe v. Steinhardt
Filing
11
ORDER Consolidating Lead Case 1:17-cv-00878-DAD-MJA with Member Cases 1:17-cv-00881-DAD-MJS, 1:17-cv-00885-DAD-MJS and 1:17-cv-00889-DAD-MJS, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/28/17. This Member Case Closed, all filing should be made in Lead Case 1:17-cv-00878-DAD-MJS. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CHRISTOPHER DAVID KROHE,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 1:17-cv-00878-DAD-MJS
LEAD CASE
ORDER:
ZANDRA STEINHARDT,
(1) ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS,
Defendant.
(2) CONSOLIDATING CASE NOS.
1:17-cv-00878-DAD-MJS,
1:17-cv-00881-DAD-MJS,
1:17-cv-00885-DAD-MJS, AND
1:17-cv-00889-DAD-MJS;
(3) ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE
NOS.
1:17-cv-00881-DAD-MJS,
1:17-cv-00885-DAD-MJS, AND
1:17-cv-00889-DAD-MJS; AND
22
(4) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
23
(Doc. No. 16)
24
25
26
27
28
1
1
2
CHRISTOPHER D. KROHE,
Plaintiff,
3
4
5
v.
ZANDRA K. STEINHARDT,
Defendant.
6
7
CHRISTOPHER D. KROHE,
8
9
10
No. 1:17-cv-00881-DAD-EPG
No. 1:17-cv-00885-LJO-SKO
Plaintiff,
v.
ZANDRA K. STEINHARDT,
11
Defendant.
12
13
CHRISTOPHER D. KROHE,
14
15
16
17
No. 1:17-cv-00889-DAD-SKO
Plaintiff,
v.
ZANDRA STEINHARDT,
Defendant.
18
19
Plaintiff Christopher David Krohe proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this
20
complaint against Zandra Steinhardt. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States
21
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States
22
District Court for the Eastern District of California.
23
On August 1, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and
24
recommended that: (1) Case Nos. 1:17-cv-00881-DAD-MJS, 1:17-cv-00885-DAD-MJS, and
25
1:17-cv-00889-DAD-MJS, be consolidated with the instant case and thereafter administratively
26
closed; and (2) plaintiff’s complaint, which is substantially identical to those in each of the other
27
consolidated cases, be dismissed without leave to amend due to lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. No.
28
16.) On August 21, 2017, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. No. 17.) In those objections, plaintiff
2
1
2
agrees that the cases should be consolidated but objects to the dismissal of his complaint.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a
3
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s
4
objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and
5
by proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections do not address the jurisdictional defects described in the
6
findings and recommendations, nor do they otherwise establish a basis for federal subject matter
7
jurisdiction.
8
Accordingly,
9
1. The August 1, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 16) are adopted in full;
10
2. The following cases shall be consolidated:
11
1:17-cv-00878-DAD-MJS,
12
1:17-cv-00881-DAD-MJS,
13
1:17-cv-00885-DAD-MJS, and
14
1:17-cv-00889-DAD-MJS;
15
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to file a copy of this order in each of the above-
16
17
referenced consolidated cases;
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close Case Nos. 1:17-cv-00881-
18
DAD-MJS, 1:17-cv-00885-DAD-MJS, and 1:17-cv-00889-DAD-MJS;
19
5. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without leave to amend for lack of jurisdiction; and
20
6. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate any pending motions and close this case.
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 28, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?