-KJN (PS) Rhodes v. Placer County et al, No. 2:2009cv00489 - Document 128 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 5/3/11 ORDERING the findings and recommendations 121 ADOPTED; The motion to dismiss the claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 is GRANTED as to dft American Medical Response (AMR), and that cla im is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; the motion to dismiss the claim for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 245 is GRANTED as to AMR, and that claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; the motion to dismiss the claims for violations of C alifornia Civil Code §§ 51 and 51.7 are GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; the motion to dismiss the claims for violations of California Civil Code §§ 54, 54.1, and 54.3 is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; the motion to dismiss the claims for violation of California Civil Code § 1708 are GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; th e motion to dismiss the trespass claim is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the trespass claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; the motion to dismiss the false imprisonment and false arrest claims are GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claims are D ISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; the motion to dismiss the defamation/slander claim is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; the motion to dismiss the conversion claim is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; the motion to dismiss the medical malpractice claim is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; and the motion to dismiss the negligence per se claim is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR. (Carlos, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-KJN (PS) Rhodes v. Placer County et al Doc. 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KATHLYN A. RHODES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:09-cv-00489-MCE-KJN PS vs. ORDER PLACER COUNTY, et al., 15 16 Defendants. __________________________________/ 17 On March 31, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF. No. 18 121) herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to 19 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were 20 filed. 21 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 22 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 23 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 24 1983). 25 26 The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations (ECF. No. 121) filed March 31, 2011, 3 are ADOPTED; 4 2. The motion to dismiss the claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 is GRANTED as to 5 defendant American Medical Response (“AMR”), and that claim is DISMISSED with prejudice 6 as against AMR; 7 8 3. The motion to dismiss the claim for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 245 is GRANTED as to AMR, and that claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; 9 4. The motion to dismiss the claims for violations of California Civil Code §§ 51 and 10 51.7 are GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as against 11 AMR; 12 5. The motion to dismiss the claims for violations of California Civil Code §§ 54, 54.1, 13 and 54.3 is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as 14 against AMR; 15 6. The motion to dismiss the claims for violation of California Civil Code § 1708 are 16 GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; 17 7. The motion to dismiss the “trespass” claim is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 “trespass” claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; 8. The motion to dismiss the false imprisonment and false arrest claims are GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; 9. The motion to dismiss the defamation/slander claim is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; 10. The motion to dismiss the conversion claim is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; 11. The motion to dismiss the medical malpractice claim is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR; and 2 1 2 3 12. The motion to dismiss the “negligence per se” claim is GRANTED as to AMR, and that the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against AMR. Dated: May 3, 2011 4 5 6 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
]]>
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.
