(PS) Vail v. City of Sacramento, No. 2:2016cv02673 - Document 63 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 56 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 10/07/19 GRANTING in PART defendant's 37 Motion to Dismiss; DISMISSING the 33 06/21/18 amended complaint's claims arising under federal law wit hout leave to amend; DECLINING to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the amended complaint's state law claims; DISMISSING the amended complaint's state law claims without prejudice; DENYING 49 Motion to Amend the Complaint; DENYING 50 Motion for Default Judgment and DENYING 54 Motion for Default Judgment. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Vail v. City of Sacramento Doc. 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRENCE VAIL, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:16-cv-2673 JAM DB PS v. ORDER CITY OF SACRAMENTO, 15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was referred to a United States 17 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On August 1, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 19 20 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 21 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the 22 findings and recommendations. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and 23 recommendations. The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 24 25 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 1, 2019 (ECF No. 56) are adopted in 3 full; 4 2. Defendant’s November 21, 2018 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 37), is granted in part; 5 3. The June 21, 2018 amended complaint’s claims arising under federal law are dismissed 6 7 8 without leave to amend; 4. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the amended complaint’s state law claims; 9 5. The amended complaint’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice; 10 6. Plaintiff’s May 28, 2019 motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 49) is denied; 11 7. Plaintiff’s May 28, 2019 motion for default judgment (ECF No. 50) is denied; 12 8. Plaintiff’s July 15, 2019 motion for default judgment (ECF No. 54) is denied; and 13 9. This action is closed. 14 15 16 17 DATED: October 7, 2019 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 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.
