(PS) Brewer v. California State Bar et al

Filing 29

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/25/2024 ADOPTING 25 Findings and Recommendations in Full, and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 14 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint no later than 30 days from this order, and this matter is REFERRED back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Woodson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

TERRENCE BREWER,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. 2:23-cv-00860-TLN-JDP

v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA STATE BAR, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action against Defendants. This matter was

15
16

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

17

302. On March 7, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

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. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff filed objections

20

on March 19, 2024, and defendants filed objections on March 20, 2024. (ECF Nos. 27, 28.)

21

Those filings were considered by the undersigned.
The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

22
23

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

24

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

25

the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

26

the magistrate judge’s analysis.

27

///

28

///
1

1
2
3
4
5
6

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The proposed findings and recommendations filed on March 7, 2024, (ECF No.
25) are ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part as follows:
a. Plaintiff’s claim for interference, coercion, or intimidation under 42 U.S. C.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

§ 12203(b) is DISMISSED with leave to amend;
b. Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED without leave to amend; and
3. This matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s ADA retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. §
12203(a);
4. Plaintiff shall file their amended complaint no later than thirty (30) days from the
electronic filing date of this Order;
5. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
Date: March 25, 2024

15
16
17
18

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2