Allen v. Superior Court of California County of Sacramento et al.

Filing 39

ORDER adopting 38 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and granting in part and denying in part 31 Motion to Dismiss signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/20/17. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CRAIG D. ALLEN,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:16-cv-00214 MCE GGH

v.

ORDER

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et
al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action brought pursuant to alleged Fourteenth
Amendment violations under 28 U.S.C. section 1983.

20

On May 8, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein,

21

recommending that the to the extent Plaintiff’s Complaint attempts to plead a claim under the Due

22

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Defendant Superior Court’s Motion to Dismiss

23

should be granted. In all other respects the motion should be denied. ECF No. 38. In that Order,

24

the magistrate judge provided the parties twenty-one days in which to object to the findings and

25

recommendations. No objections have been filed.

26

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 303, this

27

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

28

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
1

1

analysis.

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

4
5

The findings and recommendations filed May 8, 2017, ECF No. 38, are

ADOPTED IN FULL;
2.

Defendant Superior Court’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED except with respect to

6

Plaintiff’s attempt to claim a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,

7

in which particular, it is GRANTED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: July 20, 2017

10
11

_____________________________________

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2