(PS) Hartline v. National University, No. 2:2014cv00635 - Document 55 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/3/2016 ADOPTING IN FULL 43 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING 32 Motion to Dismiss with prejudice as to Counts 1 through 4, on statute of limitations grounds; GRANTING 32 Motion to Dis miss without prejudice as to Count 5; GRANTING the plaintiff LEAVE TO AMEND within 30 days; GRANTING 32 Motion to Dismiss with prejudice as to Counts 6 and 7 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; GRANTING 32 Motion to Dismiss with preju dice as to Counts 8 through 11 for failure to state a claim; GRANTING 32 Motion to Dismiss with prejudice as to Count 12, insofar as it is based on Plaintiff's placement in student teaching jobs, on statute of limitation grounds; GRANTING 32 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice as to Count 12, insofar as it is based on alleged misrepresentations of Defendant's prior experience with disabled students; GRANTING the plaintiff LEAVE TO AMEND this claim within 30 days; GRANTING 32 Motion to Dismiss with prejudice as to Count 13. (Michel, G.)

Download PDF
(PS) Hartline v. National University Doc. 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOYLE DEAN HARTLINE, 12 No. 2:14-cv-0635 KJM AC (PS) Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, 15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro per and in forma pauperis. The matter was 17 18 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under Local Rule 302(c)(21). On August 7, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 19 20 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 21 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 43. Defendant has filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 46. Plaintiff also has filed objections 23 to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 50. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 26 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 27 analysis. 28 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 7, 2015 are adopted in full; and 3 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED as follows: 4 5 6 a. GRANTED with prejudice as to Counts 1 through 4 (ADA and RA claims), on statute of limitations grounds; b. GRANTED without prejudice, as to Count 5 (RA Claim), and plaintiff is 7 granted LEAVE TO AMEND within 30 days if he can plead facts establishing that he has 8 standing, as discussed in the findings and recommendations; 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 c. GRANTED with prejudice as to Counts 6 and 7 (Age Discrimination Act claims), for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; d. GRANTED with prejudice as to Counts 8 through 10 (“Due Process” claims), for failure to state a claim; e. GRANTED with prejudice as to Count 11 (“reckless endangerment” claim), for failure to state a claim; f. GRANTED with prejudice as to Count 12 (fraud claim), insofar as it is based on plaintiff’s placement in student teaching jobs, on statute of limitations grounds; g. GRANTED without prejudice as to Count 12 (fraud claim), insofar as it is 18 based on alleged misrepresentations of defendant’s prior experience with disabled students, and 19 plaintiff is granted LEAVE TO AMEND this claim within 30 days; and 20 21 h. GRANTED with prejudice as to Count 13 (personal injury claim). DATED: February 3, 2016 22 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 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.