(PS) Saunders v. The Law Offices of Elaine Van Beveren et al, No. 2:2010cv02559 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 22 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 9/5/11. Defendants Elaine Van Beveren and the Law Offices of Elaine Van Beveren's motion to dismiss 13 is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's claims for relief brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged against defendants Elaine Van Beveren and the Law Offices of Elaine Van Beveren are dismissed with prejudice. Within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint. (Kastilahn, A)
Download PDF
(PS) Saunders v. The Law Offices of Elaine Van Beveren et al Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROBERT SAUNDERS, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. CIV-S-10-2559-GEB-KJN-PS v. THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, et al., 14 Defendants. ORDER 15 / 16 17 On July 13, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (Dkt. No. 22) 18 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On July 27, 2011, plaintiff 20 filed objections to the proposed findings and recommendations (Dkt. No. 23), which have been 21 considered by the court. 22 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 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); see 25 also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed 26 findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th 2 Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi 3 Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 4 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 5 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 13, 2011, are ADOPTED; 8 2. Defendants Elaine Van Beveren and the Law Offices of Elaine Van Beveren’s motion 9 to dismiss (Dkt. No. 13) is granted in part and denied in part; and 10 3. Plaintiff’s claims for relief brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged against 11 defendants Elaine Van Beveren and the Law Offices of Elaine Van Beveren are dismissed with 12 prejudice. 13 4. Within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a “Second Amended 14 Complaint” as more specifically provided in the magistrate judge’s Order and Findings and 15 Recommendations. 16 Dated: September 5, 2011 17 18 19 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2