Johnson et al v. City of Atwater et al, No. 1:2019cv00237 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND (Doc. Nos. 4 , 13 , 14 , 21 ) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/4/2019. (Thorp, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LORI JOHNSON, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 No. 1:19-cv-00237-DAD-SAB v. CITY OF ATWATER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND (Doc. Nos. 4, 13, 14, 21) 17 18 19 This matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss filed by defendants City of Atwater, 20 Samuel Joseph, and Ken Lee (Doc. No. 4), and a motion to amend filed by plaintiffs Lori Johnson 21 and Richard Johnson (Doc. No. 14). On May 13, 2019, the undersigned referred both motions to 22 the assigned magistrate judge for preparation of findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 16.) 23 On June 14, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 24 recommending that both motions be granted. (Doc. No. 21.) The findings and recommendations 25 were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within 26 fourteen (14) days from the date of service. To date, neither party has filed objections to the 27 findings and recommendations, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 28 ///// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 3 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. 6 The findings and recommendations issued on June 14, 2019 (Doc. No. 21) are adopted in full; 7 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint (Doc. No. 4) is granted; 8 3. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. No. 14) is granted; 9 4. Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, filed May 9, 2019 (Doc. No. 13), is stricken 10 11 and will be disregarded; 5. Plaintiffs are directed to file a first amended complaint addressing the deficiencies 12 identified in the findings and recommendations within ten (10) days of the date of 13 entry of this order; and 14 6. 15 16 17 18 If plaintiffs fail to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 4, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
