(PS) Winters, et al v. Jordan, et al, No. 2:2009cv00522 - Document 181 (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 8/02/10 148 are ADOPTED; Defendants Burrows' Security Forces' and Ryan Arbuckle's MOTION to DISMISS the Third Amended Complaint 79 is GRANTED. All of Plaintiffs' claims alleged against Defendants Burrows Security Forces and Ryan Arbuckle are DISMISSED with prejudice. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
(PS) Winters, et al v. Jordan, et al Doc. 181 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 August 2, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 17 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 18 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (Dkt. No. 148.) On August 24, 19 2010, plaintiffs filed untimely objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 20 (Dkt. No. 166) and, on September 2, 2010, defendants Ryan Arbuckle and Burrows Security 21 Force filed a response to plaintiffs’ objections (Dkt. No. 174). Despite the untimely nature of 22 plaintiffs’ objections, the undersigned has considered those objections out of an abundance of 23 caution. 24 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 25 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 26 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court 2 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 3 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 4 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 5 1983). 6 7 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. 8 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 9 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed August 2, 2010 (Dkt. No. 148), 10 11 12 13 are ADOPTED; 2. Defendants Burrows Security Forces’ and Ryan Arbuckle’s motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 79) is granted; and 3. All of plaintiffs’ claims alleged against defendants Burrows Security Forces and Ryan 14 Arbuckle are dismissed with prejudice. 15 DATED: September 13, 2010 16 17 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2