Winters, et al v. Jordan, et al

Filing 313

ORDER adopting 306 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 2/10/12: 116 Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The County Defendants' motion for a more definite statement is denied. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

BRINT ALLEN WINTERS, et al.,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiffs,

No. CIV-S-09cv0522-JAM-KJN-PS

v.
DELORES JORDAN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

On November 10, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (Dkt.

17

No. 306) herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections

18

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On November 30,

19

2011, plaintiffs filed untimely objections to the proposed findings and recommendations (Dkt.

20

No. 308), which have nevertheless been 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
7
8

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed November 10, 2011, are
ADOPTED;
2. The County Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 116)—as it relates to defendants

9

Keith Royal, Richard Kimball, Guy Selleck, Joe McCormack, Zsa Zsa Wied, Robert Bringolf,

10

Dominic La Fountain, Theresa Kingsbury, Jeff Martin, Daniel Saunders, Nathan Hutson, Jesse

11

King, Micah Arbaugh, Chris Sharp, Matt Steen, Elaine LaCroix, Alicia Milhous, Clifford

12

Newell, Charles O’Rourke, Jason Jones, and Susan McGuire—is granted in part and denied in

13

part as follows:

14
15

a.

Plaintiffs’ thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, eighteenth, thirty-first, and

thirty-sixth claims for relief are dismissed with prejudice in their entirety.

16

b.

Plaintiffs’ fourth claim for relief is dismissed with prejudice only to the

17

extent that it alleges a “Bivens claim” against the County Defendants, but proceeds insofar as it

18

alleges a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

c.

Plaintiffs’ fifth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh claims for relief are dismissed

20

with prejudice, except as described in more detail in the magistrate judge’s findings and

21

recommendations.

22
23
24

d.
3.

The County Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied in all other respects.

The County Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement is denied.

DATED: February 10, 2012

25

/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
2