-KJN (PS) Winters, et al v. Jordan, et al, No. 2:2009cv00522 - Document 300 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/19/2011 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 292 are ADOPTED; pltfs' # 189 motion for default judgment is DENIED; dft John Taylor's motion to dismiss # 199 is GRANTED on the ground that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him, and Taylor is DISMISSED from this action; dfts 186 motion to dismiss is GRANTED on the ground that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over them, and these dfts are DISMISSED from this action. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
-KJN (PS) Winters, et al v. Jordan, et al Doc. 300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRENT ALLAN WINTERS, et al., 11 12 13 14 Plaintiffs, v. DELORES JORDAN, et al., Defendants. 15 16 No. CIV-S-09-00522 JAM KJN PS ORDER / On June 20, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (Dkt. No. 17 292) herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to 18 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On July 7, 2011, 19 plaintiffs filed objections to the proposed findings and recommendations, which have been 20 considered by the court. 21 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 22 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 23 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see 24 also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed 25 findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and 26 decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi 2 Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 3 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 4 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed findings and recommendations in full. 5 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 6 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed June 20, 2011, are ADOPTED; 7 2. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 189) is denied as to the following 8 defendants: Jan Paul Miller, Bernard Coleman, Sue Roderick, Kathi Jo McBride, Stephen 9 Tinsley, Kevin Martens, Phillip Johnson, Hilda Molnar, Robert Anderson, Donald Staggs, James 10 11 Pogue, Patrick Chelsey, Hilary Frooman, John Taylor, and Eric Holder, Jr. 3. Defendant John Taylor’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 199) is granted on the ground 12 that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over him, and Taylor is dismissed from this action. 13 4. The motion to dismiss filed by defendants Jan Paul Miller, Bernard Coleman, Sue 14 Roderick, Kathi Jo McBride, Stephen Tinsley, Kevin Martens, Phillip Johnson, Hilda Molnar, 15 Robert Anderson, Donald Staggs, James Pogue, Patrick Chelsey, and Hilary Frooman (Dkt. No. 16 186) is granted on the ground that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over them, and these 17 defendants are dismissed from this action. 18 DATED: September 19, 2011 19 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.