Saunders v. The Law Offices of Elaine Van Beveren et al

Filing 25

ORDER adopting 22 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 9/5/11. Defendants Elaine Van Beveren and the Law Offices of Elaine Van Beveren's motion to dismiss 13 is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's claims for relief brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged against defendants Elaine Van Beveren and the Law Offices of Elaine Van Beveren are dismissed with prejudice. Within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ROBERT SAUNDERS,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. CIV-S-10-2559-GEB-KJN-PS

v.
THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA, et al.,

14
Defendants.

ORDER

15
/
16
17

On July 13, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (Dkt. No. 22)

18

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

19

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On July 27, 2011, plaintiff

20

filed objections to the proposed findings and recommendations (Dkt. No. 23), which have been

21

considered by the court.

22

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an

23

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

24

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see

25

also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed

26

findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and
1

1

decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th

2

Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi

3

Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

4

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

5

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed findings and recommendations in full.

6

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

7

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed July 13, 2011, are ADOPTED;

8

2. Defendants Elaine Van Beveren and the Law Offices of Elaine Van Beveren’s motion

9

to dismiss (Dkt. No. 13) is granted in part and denied in part; and

10

3. Plaintiff’s claims for relief brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged against

11

defendants Elaine Van Beveren and the Law Offices of Elaine Van Beveren are dismissed with

12

prejudice.

13

4. Within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a “Second Amended

14

Complaint” as more specifically provided in the magistrate judge’s Order and Findings and

15

Recommendations.

16

Dated: September 5, 2011

17
18
19

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2