-DAD (PS) Barnett v. Dunn et al, No. 2:2010cv02216 - Document 41 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 34 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 09/05/11 and ORDERING that plf's 39 Motion for Recusal is DENIED; dft USEAC's 9 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; plf's 1 Amended Complai nt is DISMISSED w/o leave to amend in this court; dfts Bowen and Brown's 3 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as MOOT; plf's 11 Motion for a Three-Judge Panel is DENIED as MOOT; this case is REMANDED to Sacramento County Superior Court; Clerk to close case. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
-DAD (PS) Barnett v. Dunn et al Doc. 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PAMELA BARNETT, Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 DAMON JERRELL DUNN, et al., Defendants. 14 ORDER / 15 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with the above-entitled action. The matter was 16 17 No. CIV S-10-2216 KJM DAD PS referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 18 On March 24, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 19 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to 20 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the 21 findings and recommendations. Plaintiff has filed timely objections to the findings and 22 recommendations. No reply has been filed. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 23 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 25 ///// 26 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 file, the court finds the order and findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 2 and by proper analysis.1 3 On July 25, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the undersigned recuse 4 herself from this case. Having carefully considered this request in light of the applicable law, the 5 undersigned declines to recuse. See 28 U.S.C. § 455. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Plaintiff’s motion for recusal filed July 25, 2011 (ECF No. 39) is denied; 8 2. The findings and recommendations filed March 24, 2011 (ECF No. 34) are 9 adopted in full; 10 11 3. Defendant USEAC’s August 27, 2010 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is granted; 12 13 4. Plaintiff’s July 12, 2010 amended complaint (ECF No. 1, Attach.) is dismissed without leave to amend in this court; 14 15 5. Defendants Bowen and Brown’s August 24, 2010 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 3) is denied as moot; 16 17 6. Plaintiff’s September 8, 2010 motion for a three-judge panel (ECF No. 11) is denied as moot; 18 7. This matter is remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court; and 19 8. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 20 DATED: September 5, 2011. 21 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 /barnett2216.jo 25 1 26 The court notes that, while accurate, the discussion in the findings and recommendations on page 9, lines 1-16, is not essential to resolution of the motion to dismiss. 2

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.