-EFB (PS) Schneider v. Amador County et al, No. 2:2010cv03242 - Document 36 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/28/11 ORDERING that the Proposed FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 9/1/11 32 are ADOPTED. Defendants' MOTION TO DISMISS 16 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED i n its entirety. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff's MOTION for declaratory judgment 19 is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff's Request for an extension to serve the Doe defendants 30 is DENIED as moot. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
-EFB (PS) Schneider v. Amador County et al Doc. 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 CHRISTOPHER D. SCHNEIDER, 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 12 No. CIV S-10-3242 GEB EFB PS vs. AMADOR COUNTY; LINDA VAN VLECK; JOHN HAHN; and DOES 1 through 40, 13 Defendants. 14 __________________________________/ 15 ORDER On September 1, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 16 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 17 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. After an extension of time, 18 plaintiff filed objections on September 26, 2011, and they were considered by the undersigned. 19 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to 20 which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 21 Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 22 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, 23 the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. 24 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 25 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 26 1983). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 2 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 4 5 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed September 1, 2011, are ADOPTED. 6 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 16, is granted. 7 3. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is dismissed in its entirety. 8 4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a 9 second amended complaint asserting federal claims, so long as he can cure the defects identified 10 in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations by truthfully alleging facts that are not 11 inconsistent with those contained in his current complaint. In any second amended complaint, 12 plaintiff must plead against which defendants he brings each cause of action, what each 13 defendant did to support relief under each respective cause of action, and what actual injuries 14 plaintiff has suffered as a result of each defendant’s conduct. The second amended complaint 15 must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Second Amended 16 Complaint.” Failure to timely file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order 17 will result in a recommendation by the assigned magistrate judge that this action be dismissed. 18 5. Plaintiff’s motion for declaratory judgment, Dckt. No. 19, is denied without 19 20 prejudice. 6. Plaintiff’s request for an extension to serve the Doe defendants, Dckt. No. 30, 21 is denied as moot. 22 Dated: September 28, 2011 23 24 25 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 26 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.