(PS) Tamori-Holmes v. Plumas County Mental Health Services et al, No. 2:2012cv01977 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 10/24/12 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 8/27/12 11 are ADOPTED; Defendants US Department of Health and Human Services, US Department of Justice, and US Department of Defense's mot ion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) 4 is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims against these Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; Defendant Division of Labor Standards Enforcement's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) 5 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction; The action is REMANDED to the Plumas County Superior Court; The Clerk is directed to serve a certified copy of the Court's order on the Clerk of the Plumas County Superior Court, and reference the state case number (CV11-00264) in the proof of service; The Clerk is directed to close this case. CASE CLOSED.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
(PS) Tamori-Holmes v. Plumas County Mental Health Services et al Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROBIN GAIL TAMORI-HOLMES, 11 Plaintiff, 12 No. 2:12-cv-1977-JAM-GGH PS vs. 13 14 PLUMAS COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 __________________________________/ ORDER 17 On August 27, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 18 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 20 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 21 recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility 22 to keep the court apprised of her current address at all times.1 Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), 23 service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 24 \\\\\ 25 1 26 Plaintiff has not communicated with the court since removing this case to federal court in July, 2012. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 2 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 3 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 4 1983). 5 6 7 8 9 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Findings and Recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations filed August 27, 2012, are ADOPTED and: 1. Defendants United States Department of Health and Human Services , United 10 States Department of Justice, and United States Department of Defense’s motion to dismiss 11 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) (dkt. 4) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims against these 12 defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 13 2. Defendant Division of Labor Standards Enforcement’s motion to dismiss 14 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) (dkt. 5) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to lack 15 of subject matter jurisdiction; 16 3. The action is REMANDED to the Plumas County Superior Court; 17 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a certified copy of the court’s order on 18 the Clerk of the Plumas County Superior Court, and reference the state case number (CV11- 19 00264) in the proof of service; and 20 21 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. DATED: October 24, 2012 22 /s/ John A. Mendez 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 24 25 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.