Harvey v. City of South Lake Tahoe et al

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/26/2011 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 33 are ADOPTED; El Dorado County's # 16 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; City dfts' # 17 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; and pltf is GRANTED 30 days from the date of this order to file a second amended complaint. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DANIEL THOMAS HARVEY,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

No. CIV S-10-1653 KJM EFB PS

vs.
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE;
EL DORADO COUNTY; ANDREW
EISSINGER; CHARLES DUKE,

15

Defendants.

16

__________________________________/

17

ORDER

On August 9, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

18

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings

19

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on August

20

22, 2011.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule

21
22

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file,

23

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

24

proper analysis.1

25
1

26

The court notes the case referenced in footnote 4 of the findings and recommendations,
People v. Buza, 197 Cal. App. 4th 1424 (2011), was amended following issuance of the
recommendations, without changing the result for which the case was cited. A request for review
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

2

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 9, 2011, are ADOPTED.

3

2. Defendant El Dorado County’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 16, is granted as

4

follows:

5
6

a.

in the findings and recommendations, are dismissed without leave to amend; and

7
8
9

b.

3. The City defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 17, is granted as follows:
a.

14

Claims for violation of California Penal Code sections 182, 484,

and 849(b)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 1503 are dismissed without leave to amend; and

12
13

All other claims against defendant El Dorado County are dismissed

with leave to amend as discussed in the findings and recommendations.

10
11

Claims purportedly against El Dorado Superior Court, as discussed

b.

All other claims against the City defendants are dismissed with

leave to amend as discussed in the findings and recommendations.
4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file a second

15

amended complaint.

16

DATED: September 26, 2011.

17
18
19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
of the decision was filed on September 7, 2011.
2