Winters, et al v. Jordan, et al
Filing
300
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)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
BRENT ALLAN WINTERS, et al.,
11
12
13
14
Plaintiffs,
v.
DELORES JORDAN, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
No. CIV-S-09-00522 JAM KJN PS
ORDER
/
On June 20, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (Dkt. No.
17
292) herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to
18
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On July 7, 2011,
19
plaintiffs filed objections to the proposed findings and recommendations, which have been
20
considered by the court.
21
This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an
22
objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore
23
Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see
24
also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed
25
findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and
26
decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th
1
1
Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi
2
Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
3
The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,
4
concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed findings and recommendations in full.
5
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
6
1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed June 20, 2011, are ADOPTED;
7
2. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 189) is denied as to the following
8
defendants: Jan Paul Miller, Bernard Coleman, Sue Roderick, Kathi Jo McBride, Stephen
9
Tinsley, Kevin Martens, Phillip Johnson, Hilda Molnar, Robert Anderson, Donald Staggs, James
10
11
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
12
that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over him, and Taylor is dismissed from this action.
13
4. The motion to dismiss filed by defendants Jan Paul Miller, Bernard Coleman, Sue
14
Roderick, Kathi Jo McBride, Stephen Tinsley, Kevin Martens, Phillip Johnson, Hilda Molnar,
15
Robert Anderson, Donald Staggs, James Pogue, Patrick Chelsey, and Hilary Frooman (Dkt. No.
16
186) is granted on the ground that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over them, and these
17
defendants are dismissed from this action.
18
DATED: September 19, 2011
19
/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?