Winters, et al v. Jordan, et al
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/19/2011 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 292 are ADOPTED; pltfs' # 189 motion for default judgment is DENIED; dft John Taylor's motion to dismiss # 199 is GRANTED on the ground that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him, and Taylor is DISMISSED from this action; dfts 186 motion to dismiss is GRANTED on the ground that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over them, and these dfts are DISMISSED from this action. (Reader, L)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BRENT ALLAN WINTERS, et al.,
DELORES JORDAN, et al.,
No. CIV-S-09-00522 JAM KJN PS
On June 20, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (Dkt. No.
292) herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On July 7, 2011,
plaintiffs filed objections to the proposed findings and recommendations, which have been
considered by the court.
This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an
objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore
Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see
also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed
findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and
decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th
Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi
Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
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.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed June 20, 2011, are ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 189) is denied as to the following
defendants: Jan Paul Miller, Bernard Coleman, Sue Roderick, Kathi Jo McBride, Stephen
Tinsley, Kevin Martens, Phillip Johnson, Hilda Molnar, Robert Anderson, Donald Staggs, James
Pogue, Patrick Chelsey, Hilary Frooman, John Taylor, and Eric Holder, Jr.
3. Defendant John Taylor’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 199) is granted on the ground
that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over him, and Taylor is dismissed from this action.
4. The motion to dismiss filed by defendants Jan Paul Miller, Bernard Coleman, Sue
Roderick, Kathi Jo McBride, Stephen Tinsley, Kevin Martens, Phillip Johnson, Hilda Molnar,
Robert Anderson, Donald Staggs, James Pogue, Patrick Chelsey, and Hilary Frooman (Dkt. No.
186) is granted on the ground that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over them, and these
defendants are dismissed from this action.
DATED: September 19, 2011
/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?