(PS) McGee v. State of California et al, No. 2:2016cv01796 - Document 49 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 4/19/2017: ADOPTING 40 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING 13 , 22 Motion to Dismiss as to The County of Sacramento and State of California; DENYING 15 Motion for Default Judgment. (Washington, S)

Download PDF
(PS) McGee v. State of California et al Doc. 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFERSON A. McGEE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:16-cv-1796-JAM-EFB PS v. ORDER STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 On March 3, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 17 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 March 20, 20 2017, and they were considered by the undersigned. This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 21 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). As 24 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court 25 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 26 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 27 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 2 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 4 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed March 3, 2017, are adopted; 5 2. The County of Sacramento and State of California’s motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 13, 6 22) are granted and all claims against these defendants are dismissed without leave to amend; 7 and 8 9 3. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 15) is denied. DATED: April 19, 2017 10 /s/ John A. Mendez________________________ 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.