Winters, et al v. Jordan, et al
Filing
326
ORDER adopting 311 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/9/12. Defendant Delores Jordans motion to dismiss 257 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant David Silber's motion to dismiss 258 is GRANTED. All of plaintiffs' claims alleged against Silber are dismissed with prejudice, and Silber is dismissed from this action. Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment 189 is DENIED as to defendant Delores Jordan. (Kastilahn, A) (Kastilahn, A)
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
Plaintiffs,
No. CIV-S-09-0522-JAM-KJN-PS
vs.
13
DELORES JORDAN, et al.,
14
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER
15
16
On February 2, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
17
which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings
18
and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days (Dkt. No. 311). Although no party
19
filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations, plaintiffs filed untimely objections
20
to those findings and recommendations on March 2, 2012 (Dkt. No. 319). Despite the untimely
21
nature of plaintiffs’ objections, the court has considered those objections out of an abundance of
22
caution.
23
This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an
24
objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore
25
Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see
26
also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed
1
1
findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and
2
decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th
3
Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi
4
Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
5
6
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.
7
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
8
1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed February 2, 2012, are ADOPTED.
9
2. Defendant Delores Jordan’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 257) is granted in part and
10
denied in part. Specifically, the following claims shall proceed:
11
12
a.
Plaintiffs’ seventh claim for relief (violation of rights of Equal Protection),
only to the extent that it is alleged by plaintiff Susan Winters against defendant Delores Jordan;
13
b.
Plaintiffs’ ninth claim for relief (civil battery), only to the extent that it is
14
alleged by plaintiffs Susan, Cacey, Christy, and Jennifer Winters against defendant Delores
15
Jordan;
16
c.
Plaintiffs’ tenth claim for relief (civil assault), only to the extent that it is
17
alleged by plaintiffs Susan, Cacey, Christy, and Jennifer Winters against defendant Delores
18
Jordan;
19
d.
Plaintiffs’ twelfth claim for relief (trespass); and
20
e.
Plaintiffs’ twenty-fifth claim for relief (invasion of privacy), only to the
21
22
23
24
extent that it concerns alleged intrusions on May 26, 2008, and June 2, 2008.
Plaintiffs’ remaining claims alleged against Jordan are dismissed with prejudice in all
other respects.
3. Defendant David Silber’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 258) is granted. All of
25
plaintiffs’ claims alleged against Silber are dismissed with prejudice, and Silber is dismissed
26
from this action.
2
1
4. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 189) is denied as to defendant
2
Delores Jordan.
3
DATED: March 9, 2012
4
5
/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
6
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?