-KJN (PS) Rhodes v. Placer County et al, No. 2:2009cv00489 - Document 126 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 5/3/11 ORDERING the findings and recommendations 122 ADOPTED; motion to dismiss the claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is GRANTED as to moving dfts the County of Sacramento and Dorian Kittr ell (collectively, the moving defendants), and that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against them; the motion to dismiss the claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 is GRANTED, and that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against th e moving dfts; the motion to dismiss the claims for violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985-86 are GRANTED, and that the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as against the moving dfts; the motion to dismiss the claim for violations of 18 U.S.C. 67; 245 is GRANTED, and that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against the moving defendants; and; vacating 72 Motion to Dismiss ; granting in part and denying in part 73 Motion to Dismiss ; adopting 122 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS6. Th e motion to dismiss plaintiffs state law claims are GRANTED, and that plaintiffs state law claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as against the moving defendants. Specifically, these state law claims are: a. The second claim for relief under California statutes; b. The third claim for trespass; c. The sixth claim for medical battery; d. The seventh claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; e. The ninth claim for false imprisonment; f. The eleventh claim for conversion; g. The twelfth claim for medical malpractice; and h. The thirteenth claim for negligence per se. (Carlos, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-KJN (PS) Rhodes v. Placer County et al Doc. 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KATHLYN A. RHODES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:09-cv-00489-MCE-KJN PS vs. ORDER PLACER COUNTY, et al., 15 16 Defendants. __________________________________/ 17 On March 31, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18 122) herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to 19 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were 20 filed. 21 Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 22 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 23 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 24 1983). 25 26 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 122) filed March 31, 2011, 3 are ADOPTED; 4 2. The motion to dismiss the claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is GRANTED as to 5 moving defendants the County of Sacramento (the “County”) and Dorian Kittrell (“Kittrell”) 6 (collectively, the “moving defendants”), and that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as 7 against them; 8 9 3. The motion to dismiss the claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 is GRANTED, and that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against the moving defendants; 10 4. The motion to dismiss the claims for violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985-86 are 11 GRANTED, and that the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as against the moving 12 defendants; 13 5. The motion to dismiss the claim for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 245 is GRANTED, and 14 that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against the moving defendants; and 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 2 1 6. The motion to dismiss plaintiff’s state law claims are GRANTED, and that plaintiff’s 2 state law claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as against the moving defendants. Specifically, 3 these state law claims are: 4 a. The second claim for relief under California statutes; 5 b. The third claim for trespass; 6 c. The sixth claim for medical battery; 7 d. The seventh claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; 8 e. The ninth claim for false imprisonment; 9 f. The eleventh claim for conversion; 10 g. The twelfth claim for medical malpractice; and 11 h. The thirteenth claim for negligence per se. 12 Dated: May 3, 2011 13 14 15 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
