Rhodes v. Placer County et al
Filing
128
ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 5/3/11 ORDERING the findings and recommendations 121 ADOPTED; The motion to dismiss the claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 is GRANTED as to dft American Medical Response (AMR), and that cla im is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; the motion to dismiss the claim for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 245 is GRANTED as to AMR, and that claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; the motion to dismiss the claims for violations of C alifornia Civil Code §§ 51 and 51.7 are GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; the motion to dismiss the claims for violations of California Civil Code §§ 54, 54.1, and 54.3 is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; the motion to dismiss the claims for violation of California Civil Code § 1708 are GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; th e motion to dismiss the trespass claim is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the trespass claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; the motion to dismiss the false imprisonment and false arrest claims are GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claims are D ISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; the motion to dismiss the defamation/slander claim is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; the motion to dismiss the conversion claim is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; the motion to dismiss the medical malpractice claim is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; and the motion to dismiss the negligence per se claim is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR. (Carlos, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KATHLYN A. RHODES,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:09-cv-00489-MCE-KJN PS
vs.
ORDER
PLACER COUNTY, et al.,
15
16
Defendants.
__________________________________/
17
On March 31, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF. No.
18
121) herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to
19
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were
20
filed.
21
Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v.
22
United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are
23
reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.
24
1983).
25
26
The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,
concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations (ECF. No. 121) filed March 31, 2011,
3
are ADOPTED;
4
2. The motion to dismiss the claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 is GRANTED as to
5
defendant American Medical Response (“AMR”), and that claim is DISMISSED with prejudice
6
as against AMR;
7
8
3. The motion to dismiss the claim for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 245 is GRANTED as to
AMR, and that claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR;
9
4. The motion to dismiss the claims for violations of California Civil Code §§ 51 and
10
51.7 are GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as against
11
AMR;
12
5. The motion to dismiss the claims for violations of California Civil Code §§ 54, 54.1,
13
and 54.3 is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as
14
against AMR;
15
6. The motion to dismiss the claims for violation of California Civil Code § 1708 are
16
GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR;
17
7. The motion to dismiss the “trespass” claim is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
“trespass” claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR;
8. The motion to dismiss the false imprisonment and false arrest claims are GRANTED
as to AMR, and that the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR;
9. The motion to dismiss the defamation/slander claim is GRANTED as to AMR, and
that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR;
10. The motion to dismiss the conversion claim is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the
claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR;
11. The motion to dismiss the medical malpractice claim is GRANTED as to AMR, and
that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; and
2
1
2
3
12. The motion to dismiss the “negligence per se” claim is GRANTED as to AMR, and
that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR.
Dated: May 3, 2011
4
5
6
________________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?