(PS) Romine v. Duppman et al, No. 2:2016cv02012 - Document 36 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/29/17: The findings and recommendations filed May 4, 2017, are adopted. MOTIONS to dismiss 5 , 13 , 19 are granted. The complaint is dismissed without leave to amend for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff's motion to amend 23 is denied. The Clerk is directed to close the case. CASE CLOSED.(Kaminski, H)
Download PDF
(PS) Romine v. Duppman et al Doc. 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CHAD ROMINE, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2:16-cv-02012-TLN-EFB v. ORDER GEOFF DUPPMAN, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On May 4, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on May 18, 2017, and Defendants filed replies thereto on June 1, 2017. The Court has considered those filings. This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 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 findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 4, 2017, are adopted; 5 2. Defendants Stelz, Duppman, Madden, and Scales motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 5, 13, 6 19) are granted; 7 3. The complaint is dismissed without leave to amend for lack of jurisdiction; 8 4. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 23) is denied; and 9 5. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 10 11 Dated: August 29, 2017 12 13 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2