McGee v. State of California et al

Filing 49

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 4/19/2017: ADOPTING 40 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING 13 , 22 Motion to Dismiss as to The County of Sacramento and State of California; DENYING 15 Motion for Default Judgment. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEFFERSON A. McGEE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-1796-JAM-EFB PS

v.

ORDER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On March 3, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

17
18

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

19

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on March 20,

20

2017, and they were considered by the undersigned.
This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which

21
22

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

23

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

24

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court

25

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

26

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

27

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

28

/////
1

1

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

2

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

4

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed March 3, 2017, are adopted;

5

2. The County of Sacramento and State of California’s motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 13,

6

22) are granted and all claims against these defendants are dismissed without leave to amend;

7

and

8
9

3. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 15) is denied.
DATED: April 19, 2017

10

/s/ John A. Mendez________________________

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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