Castaneda v. USA, No. 1:2017cv00209 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DENYING 9 Petition for Approval of Minor's Compromise, Without Prejudice signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/14/2019. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 E.C., a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Case No. 1:17-cv-00209-LJO-SAB Litem, Whitney Castaneda, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S v. PETITION FOR MINOR’S COMPROMISE 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (ECF Nos. 9, 12, 13, 14) 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff E.C., by and through his guardian ad litem, filed this action in the California 19 Superior Court, County of Tulare alleging a negligence claim against Patricia Olise and the 20 Tulare Community Health Clinic. (ECF No. 1 at 5-9.) On February 13, 2017, the United States 21 of America removed this action to the Eastern District of California and filed a notice of 22 substitution in place of the defendants in this action. (ECF No. 1.) On February 15, 2017, an 23 order was filed requiring Plaintiff to file a petition for appointment of a guardian ad litem within 24 ten days. (ECF No. 4.) On February 5, 2017, the United States filed a motion to dismiss the 25 complaint which was referred to the undersigned. (ECF Nos. 5, 6, 7.) On February 23, 2017, the 26 parties filed a stipulation to dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.) On 27 February 24, 2019, an order issued directing the Clerk of the Court to close this matter pursuant 28 to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 8.) 1 1 On January 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for approval of a minor’s compromise. 2 (ECF No. 9.) The matter was was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 3 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 4 On February 27, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 5 (“F&Rs”). The F&Rs recommended that the petition for minor’s compromise be denied without 6 prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The F&Rs were served on the parties and contained notice that 7 any objections to the F&Rs were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. 8 The period for filing objections has passed and no objections have been filed. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 10 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the F&Rs 11 to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The F&Rs, filed February 27, 2019, is ADOPTED IN FULL; and 14 2. The petition for approval of minor’s compromise is DENIED without prejudice. 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ March 14, 2019 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT 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.
