Saunders v. The Law Offices of Elaine Van Beveren et al
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA, et al.,
On July 13, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (Dkt. No. 22)
herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On July 27, 2011, plaintiff
filed objections to the proposed findings and recommendations (Dkt. No. 23), which have been
considered by the court.
This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an
objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore
Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see
also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed
findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and
decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th
Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi
Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
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.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed July 13, 2011, are ADOPTED;
2. Defendants Elaine Van Beveren and the Law Offices of Elaine Van Beveren’s motion
to dismiss (Dkt. No. 13) is granted in part and denied in part; and
3. 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
4. Within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a “Second Amended
Complaint” as more specifically provided in the magistrate judge’s Order and Findings and
Dated: September 5, 2011
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge
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?