Clark v. County of Sacramento et al
Filing
41
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 9/28/17 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 7/12/17 37 are ADOPTED in full; Defendants' 12/5/16 MOTION to DISMISS 30 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; The second amend ed complaint's Monell and violation of the ADA claims are DISMISSED without leave to amend; The second amended complaint's claim for illegal seizure against defendant County of Sacramento is DISMISSED without leave to amend; Defendant Nel son and Defendant Kemp are directed to file an answer within fourteen days of the date of this order to the second amended complaint's claims for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; false arrest; excessive force; and illegal seizure of property; and Defendant County of Sacramento is DISMISSED from this action. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
FELICIA CLARK,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-1211 JAM DB PS
v.
ORDER
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a
17
18
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).
On July 12, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which
19
20
were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and
21
recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and
22
recommendations. The fourteen-day period has expired, and no party has filed objections to the
23
findings and recommendations.
The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be
24
25
supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.
26
////
27
////
28
////
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. The findings and recommendations filed July 12, 2017 (ECF No. 37) are adopted in
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
full;
2. Defendants’ December 5, 2016 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 30) is granted in part and
denied in part;
3. The second amended complaint’s Monell and violation of the ADA claims are
dismissed without leave to amend;
4. The second amended complaint’s claim for illegal seizure against defendant County of
Sacramento is dismissed without leave to amend;
5. Defendant Nelson and Defendant Kemp are directed to file an answer within fourteen
11
days of the date of this order to the second amended complaint’s claims for retaliation in violation
12
of the First Amendment; false arrest; excessive force; and illegal seizure of property; and
13
14
6. Defendant County of Sacramento is dismissed from this action.
DATED: September 28, 2017
15
/s/ John A. Mendez________________________
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?