(PC) Rogers v. Vargas, et al., No. 1:2009cv01027 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING, with Prejudice, Federal Claims for Failure to State a Claim and REMANDING Action to State Court for Consideration of any Remaining State Law Claims signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/22/2011. CASE CLOSED. Copy of remand order sent to Kings County Superior Court. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
(PC) Rogers v. Vargas, et al. Doc. 14 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 CHARLES A. ROGERS CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01027-AWI-GBC (PC) 7 Plaintiff, 8 9 v. 10 11 12 S. PONCE, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING, WITH PREJUDICE, FEDERAL CLAIMS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT FOR CONSIDERATION OF ANY REMAINING STATE LAW CLAIMS Defendants. (Doc. No. 13) 13 / CLERK SHALL CLOSE CASE 14 15 16 ORDER 17 Plaintiff Charles A. Rogers (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate, is proceeding pro se in this 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United State 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Defendants removed this action from Kings County Superior Court on June 11, 21 22 2009. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s original Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend for 23 failure to state any claims. (ECF No. 7.) On December 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed his First 24 Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 8.) The Magistrate Judge dismissed the First Amended 25 Complaint, with leave to amend, on January 7, 2011. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed a Second 26 Amended Complaint on February 10, 2011. (ECF No. 12.) Upon screening, the Magistrate 27 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 Judge recommended dismissal of federal claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and remand of state claims to state court on February 22, 2011. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff was directed to file Objections within thirty days. Plaintiff 4 5 6 7 has failed to file any Objections or otherwise respond to the Court’s Order. Further, Defendants have filed no response or objection to the recommendation that the Court remand this case to the Kings County Superior Court. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 302, 9 this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 10 entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the 11 12 13 record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 22, 2011, is ADOPTED; 15 2. Plaintiff’s Federal Claims contained in his Second Amended Complaint are 16 17 DISMISSED withprejudice; 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court DECLINES to exercise 18 supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims,; 19 20 4. further proceedings concerning any state claims; and 21 22 23 The action is REMANDED forthwith to Kings County Superior Court for 5. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: 0m8i78 July 22, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 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.