Romine v. Duppman et al

Filing 36

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/29/17: The findings and recommendations filed May 4, 2017, are adopted. MOTIONS to dismiss 5 , 13 , 19 are granted. The complaint is dismissed without leave to amend for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff's motion to amend 23 is denied. The Clerk is directed to close the case. CASE CLOSED.(Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

CHAD ROMINE,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. 2:16-cv-02012-TLN-EFB

v.

ORDER

GEOFF DUPPMAN, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On May 4, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 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. Plaintiff filed objections on May 18,
2017, and Defendants filed replies thereto on June 1, 2017. The Court has considered those
filings.
This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which
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). 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 Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
1

1

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

2

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly,

3

IT IS ORDERED that:

4

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 4, 2017, are adopted;

5

2. Defendants Stelz, Duppman, Madden, and Scales motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 5, 13,

6

19) are granted;

7

3. The complaint is dismissed without leave to amend for lack of jurisdiction;

8

4. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 23) is denied; and

9

5. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

10
11

Dated: August 29, 2017

12
13
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

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