Staar v. County of Amador

Filing 5

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 6/22/2017 ADOPTING 3 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 1 Request for TRO. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with 20 days leave to amend. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MONICA STAAR,

12
13
14

No. 2:17-cv-0974-MCE-KJN PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

COUNTY OF AMADOR,

15

Defendant.

16
17

On May 11, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3),

18

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

19

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On May 26, 2017, Plaintiff

20

filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 4), which have been considered

21

by the Court.

22

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an

23

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

24

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d

25

930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection

26

has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law.

27

See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s

28

conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d
1

1
2

452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

3

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations, except to the extent

4

they recommend dismissal without leave to amend. Rather, the Court finds that granting leave to

5

amend is appropriate here, only so that Plaintiff may amend her complaint to state a cognizable

6

federal claim of due process and/or equal protection violations. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

7

ORDERED that:

8

1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3) are ADOPTED.

9

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with 20 days leave to amend.

10

3. Plaintiff’s request for TRO (ECF No. 1) is DENIED.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: June 22, 2017

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