Parham v. Steemers et al

Filing 49

ORDER adopting 45 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL ; granting 6 Motion to Dismiss; granting 7 Motion to Dismiss ; granting in part and denying in part 8 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 10 Motion to Dismiss signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/16/12: Defendants James, Davis, Wieser, and Bennett are dismissed from the case with prejudice. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

LATASHA PARHAM,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

vs.
PHILIP STEEMERS, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

ORDER
/

15
16

No. CIV S-11-1475 LKK CKD PS

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21).
On October 11, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

19

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

20

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

21

Objections to the findings and recommendations were filed on October 26, 2011, and they were

22

considered by the district judge.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

(1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made,
1

1

the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v.

2

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

3

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

4

1983).

5

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

6

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

7

ORDERED that:

8

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 11, 2011, are adopted in full.

9

2. Defendants Gaspar and Parker’s motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 6) is granted

10

without leave to amend, and these defendants are dismissed from the case with prejudice.

11

3. Defendants Wilson, Hakenan, and Kenney’s motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 7) is

12

granted without leave to amend, and these defendants are dismissed from the case with

13

prejudice.

14

without leave to amend, and these defendants are dismissed from the case with prejudice.

15
16
17

4. Defendants Jue and Vera’s motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 10) is granted

5. Defendants James, Davis, Wieser, and Bennett are dismissed from the case
with prejudice.
6. Defendants Steemers and Dadisho’s motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 8) is granted in

18

part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and

19

eleventh causes of action against these defendants are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff is

20

given leave to amend her first cause of action to allege a conspiracy to violate her Fourth and

21

Fourteenth Amendment rights under sections 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against defendants

22

Steemers and Dadisho. If plaintiff elects to amend, these claims shall be set forth in separate

23

causes of action. Plaintiff is given leave to amend her second cause of action to state claims

24

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause

25

of the Fourteenth Amendment against Steemers and Dadisho. If plaintiff elects to amend, these

26

claims shall likewise be set forth in separate causes of action.
2

1

DATED: March 16, 2012.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3