(PS) Rucker v. Sacramento County Child Protective Services, No. 2:2009cv01673 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 7/26/10 ORDERING the Findings and Recommendations 18 ADOPTED; dft's motion to dismiss 4 is GRANTED and this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Carlos, K)

Download PDF
(PS) Rucker v. Sacramento County Child Protective Services Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HAROLD J. RUCKER JR., 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 No. CIV-S-09-1673-JAM-KJN PS vs. SACRAMENTO COUNTY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, SACRAMENTO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ORDER 15 16 Defendants. __________________________________/ 17 18 On June 2, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 19 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 20 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections to the findings 21 and recommendations. Defendants filed a response to plaintiff’s objections. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 23 this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 24 the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 25 analysis. 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Good cause appearing, 2 IT IS ORDERED that: 3 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed June 2, 2010, are ADOPTED; 4 2. Defendant’s October 19, 2009, motion to dismiss is granted on the grounds that 5 plaintiff’s federal claims are time barred, and this matter is dismissed with prejudice for lack of 6 subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and the court declines to exercise 7 jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. 8 DATED: July 26, 2010 9 10 /s/ John A. Mendez___________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 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.