(PS) Kent v. California Department of Consumer Affairs et al, No. 2:2009cv02905 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on 7/19/2010 ORDERING 17 The Proposed Findings and Recommendations, are ADOPTED; Plaintiff's claims alleged against the CA Dept of Consumer Affairs and the Contractors State Licensing Board are DISMI SSED with prejudice and these dfts are DISMISSED from this action; Pltf's claims alleged against the remaining individual dfts are DISMISSED with prejudice to the extent that pltf has alleged such claims against these individuals in their official capacities; and pltf's tenth and eleventh claims for relief brought pursuant to 42:1985 and 1986, respectively, are DISMISSED with prejudice as to all defendants. (Reader, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Kent v. California Department of Consumer Affairs et al Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOHN KENT, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 No. CIV-S-09-2905 FCD KJN PS vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, et al., ORDER 14 15 Defendants. __________________________________/ 16 17 On June 11, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 18 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on June 25, 20 2010 (Dkt. No. 18) and, on July 12, 2010, filed untimely “First Amended Objections” (Dkt. No. 21 19). In an abundance of caution, the undersigned has considered both sets of objections filed by 22 plaintiff. 23 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 24 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 25 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 26 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 2 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 3 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 4 1983). 5 6 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. 7 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 8 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed June 11, 2010, are ADOPTED; 9 2. Plaintiff’s claims alleged against the California Department of Consumer Affairs and 10 the Contractors State Licensing Board are dismissed with prejudice and these defendants are 11 dismissed from this action; 12 3. Plaintiff’s claims alleged against the remaining individual defendants are dismissed 13 with prejudice to the extent that plaintiff has alleged such claims against these individuals in 14 their official capacities; and 15 4. Plaintiff’s tenth and eleventh claims for relief brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 16 and 1986, respectively, are dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants. 17 DATED: July 19, 2010. 18 19 20 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
