Engelbrecht v. Ripa, No. 1:2017cv01339 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 8 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 08/17/2018. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 TONYA D. ENGELBRECHT, 10 11 Plaintiff, v. 14 15 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 7, 8) 12 13 Case No. 1:17-cv-01339-LJO-EPG KELLY RIPA, Defendant. Tonya D. Engelbrecht (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. 16 On October 5, 2017, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint alleging claims of 17 torture, defamation, breach of contract, and violation of the California Welfare and Institution Code 18 against Kelly Ripa (“Defendant”), owner of Milojo Productions. (ECF No. 1). The matter was 19 referred to United States Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 20 and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 30, 2018, the Magistrate Judge found that the Complaint failed to state any 22 cognizable claims, and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 6). On 23 February 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 7). On July 16, 24 2018, the Magistrate Judge screened the FAC, and issued findings and recommendations that all 25 claims in this action should be dismissed, except Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract against 26 Defendant. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff was served with the findings and recommendations, which 27 contained a notice that any objections thereto must be filed within twenty-one days (21) days from 28 1 1 the date of service. 2 On August 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations, 3 maintaining that (1) the Magistrate Judge did not have authority to issue findings and 4 recommendations; (2) she was tortured in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2340(2); (3) she was abused in 5 violation of California Welfare and Institutions Code § 15657; and (4) the court has feloniously 6 published her personal financial information, driver’s license, and social security number. (ECF 7 No. 9). As to the first three objections, the Magistrate Judge’s role in this case is authorized by 8 statute, and the reasoning of the F&Rs regarding Plaintiff’s claims is sound. As to the final 9 objection, the Court cannot identify any place in the record where the Court published Plaintiff’s 10 driver’s license or social security numbers. Plaintiff herself filed a document containing a copy of 11 a personal check and bearing some financial account information. (ECF No. 4.) Pursuant to Local 12 Rule 140(a), personal information of this nature must be redacted by the filing party, see Local Rule 13 140(e). However, as a courtesy to Plaintiff, this personal information has now been redacted from 14 the copy of that record maintained in the electronic case file. 15 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a 16 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 17 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. The findings and recommendations dated July 16, 2018, (ECF No. 8), are 20 ADOPTED; and 2. All claims in this action, except Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract against 21 22 Kelly Ripa, are hereby dismissed. 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ August 17, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
