(PC)Ransom v. McCabe et al, No. 1:2013cv01779 - Document 42 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 41 Findings and Recommendations and Denying 31 Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/22/15. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 BRYAN E. RANSOM, Plaintiff, 14 vs. 15 16 C. McCABE, et al., Defendants. 17 1:13cv01779 AWI DLB PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Document 41) Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on November 5, 2013. On February 13, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the majority of state law 20 21 claims for failure to allege compliance with the California Government Claims Act. The matter 22 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 23 Rule 302. On September 2, 2015, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that 24 25 Defendants’ motion be denied without prejudice. The parties were advised that objections were 26 to be filed within thirty days of the date of service of this order. No objections have been filed. 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 2 a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 3 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. 6 7 full; 2. 8 9 10 The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 2, 2015, are ADOPTED in Defendants’ motion to dismiss the state law claims is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and 3. Defendants SHALL file a responsive pleading within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 22, 2015 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 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.