Harvey v. City of South Lake Tahoe et al

Filing 91

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/30/2013 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 89 are ADOPTED in FULL; Defendant El Dorado County's motion to dismiss 80 is GRANTED; Plaintiff's claims against the County are DISMISSED without leave to amend; The City defendants' 81 motion to dismiss, is GRANTED; Plaintiff's claims against the City are DISMISSED without leave to amend; Plaintiff's claims against the individual defendants are DISMISSED with LEAVE to amend; and Plaintiff is given 30 days from the date of this order to file his fifth amended complaint against the individual defendants. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL THOMAS HARVEY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:10-CV-1653 KJM EFB PS

v.

ORDER

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42

17
18

U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28

19

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 27, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

20
21

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

22

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304,

24
25

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

26

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

27

analysis.

28

/////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 27, 2013 are adopted in full;

3

2. Defendant El Dorado County’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 80, is granted;

4

3. Plaintiff’s claims against the County are dismissed without leave to amend;

5

4. The City defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 81, is granted;

6

5. Plaintiff’s claims against the City are dismissed without leave to amend;

7

6. Plaintiff’s claims against the individual defendants are dismissed with leave to

8
9

amend; and
7. Plaintiff is given thirty days from the date of this order to file his fifth amended

10

complaint against the individual defendants.

11

DATED: September 30, 2013.

12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2