Maria Medrano Alfaro v. County of Orange et al, No. 8:2018cv00148 - Document 30 (C.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: It is Ordered that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 29 is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 22 is granted in part/denied in part, and Defendants' Motion to Strike 23 is denied as moot. Judgment shall be entered dismissing the entire action without prejudice. (cw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Maria Medrano Alfaro v. County of Orange et al Doc. 30 1 10/30/2018 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIA MEDRANO ALFARO,et al 12 13 Case No. 8:18-cv-00148-PSG(MAA) Plaintiffs, v. 14 COUNTY OF ORANGE,et al., ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 Defendants. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, the other 18 records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States 19 Magistrate Judge. Further, the time for filing objections has expired and no 20 objections have been made. The Court accepts the findings and recommendations 21 ofthe Magistrate Judge and adopts them as its own findings and conclusions. 22 23 24 25 26 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation ofthe Magistrate Judge is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED; 2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED without prejudice to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs R.M., S.M., and V.M.M.; 27 3. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DEI~IIED without prejudice as moot 28 to the extent it seeks dismissal of the claims of Plaintiffs Alfaro, S.M., Dockets.Justia.com 1 and V.M.M. for:(i) violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 2 (ii) negligence,(iii) battery,(iv) assault, and(v)intentional infliction 3 of emotional distress; 4 4. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED without prejudice as to 5 Plaintiff Alfaro's claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress 6 against all Defendants except Officer Cantu; 7 5. The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 8 sole remaining state law claim (Plaintiff Alfaro's claim for negligent 9 infliction of emotional distress against all Defendants) and 10 DISMISSES such claim without prejudice; 11 6. Defendants' Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot; and 12 7. Judgment shall be ENTERED dismissing the entire action without 13 prejudice. 14 15 16 17 DATED: 6~?~ l~ ~~ L . GUTIERREZ UI~IITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 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.
