(PS) Winters, et al v. Jordan, et al, No. 2:2009cv00522 - Document 179 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/13/10 ORDERING that the proposed FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 7/22/10 146 are ADOPTED; Defendant Michael Armstrong's MOTION to DISMISS the Third Amended Complaint 85 is GRANTED. All Plaintiffs' claims alleged against Michael Armstrong are DISMISSED with prejudice. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
(PS) Winters, et al v. Jordan, et al Doc. 179 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRENT ALLEN WINTERS, et al., 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-09-0522-JAM-KJN-PS vs. DELORES JORDAN, et al., ORDER 14 15 16 Defendants. __________________________________/ On July 22, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 17 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 18 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (Dkt. No. 146.) On August 11, 2010, 19 plaintiffs filed untimely objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. 20 (Dkt. No. 154.) Despite the untimely nature of plaintiffs’ objections, the undersigned has 21 considered those objections out of an abundance of caution. 22 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 23 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 24 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 25 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court 26 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 2 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 3 1983). 4 5 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. 6 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 7 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed July 22, 2010 (Dkt. No. 146), are 8 9 10 11 ADOPTED; 2. Defendant Michael Armstrong’s motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. Nos. 82, 85) is granted; and 3. All of plaintiffs’ claims alleged against Michael Armstrong are dismissed with 12 prejudice. 13 DATED: September 13, 2010 14 15 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2